Nano Good/Bad - Open Evidence Project
advertisement
1ACs ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 1AC Version 1.0 ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Observation 1: SQ .............................................................................................................................. 10 Plan Text ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Observation 2: Mexico ....................................................................................................................... 14 Observation 3: U.S. ............................................................................................................................ 20 Topicality Stuff ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Topicality EE = Aid ........................................................................................................................... 30 Topicality – Expertise & Know How ................................................................................................. 32 Topicality – Gov-Gov ........................................................................................................................ 33 Topicality – Gov-Gov ........................................................................................................................ 34 Topicality – Assistance ...................................................................................................................... 35 Topicality – On-Going ....................................................................................................................... 37 Disad Answers ............................................................................................................................................ 38 Dip Cap D.A. .......................................................................................................................................... 39 S&T Leadership Solves...................................................................................................................... 40 Politics .................................................................................................................................................... 41 Regulations Unpopular....................................................................................................................... 42 Nano Unpop: Science Fiction ............................................................................................................ 43 Nano Unpop: Controversy ................................................................................................................. 44 Nano Unpop: Morality ....................................................................................................................... 45 Nano Popular: Various ....................................................................................................................... 46 Nano Popular: No opp ........................................................................................................................ 47 Nano Popular: Congres, Orgs ............................................................................................................. 48 Nano Bipart ........................................................................................................................................ 49 USAID Unpop .................................................................................................................................... 50 S&T Bipart ......................................................................................................................................... 51 Nano Lobbies Push............................................................................................................................. 52 Counterplan Answers .................................................................................................................................. 53 ***International CPs*** ........................................................................................................................ 54 US Key ................................................................................................................................................... 55 US Key: Experience Regs .................................................................................................................. 56 U.S. Key: Relationship/Expertise....................................................................................................... 57 U.S. Regs Modeled............................................................................................................................. 58 U.S. Regs k International Coop .......................................................................................................... 59 Nano Leadership ................................................................................................................................ 60 Coop/Investment key .............................................................................................................................. 61 2AC Add-on Internal: Water/Disease ................................................................................................ 62 Coop & Info-Share Key ..................................................................................................................... 63 Collaboration Key................................................................................................................................... 64 Solves Resources ................................................................................................................................ 65 Solves Regulations (Brain Drain)....................................................................................................... 66 Coop Key/Modeling ........................................................................................................................... 67 Computer Crimes ............................................................................................................................... 68 Coop key Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................... 69 Coop key Diffusion ............................................................................................................................ 70 U.S. Regs Key ........................................................................................................................................ 71 U.S. Regs k Commercial Devp .......................................................................................................... 72 Key to Commercial. ........................................................................................................................... 73 Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 74 Regs Key – Enviro & Development ................................................................................................... 75 Regs Key: Commercialization ........................................................................................................... 76 Effective Regs Key............................................................................................................................. 77 Effective Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 78 Regs/Assistance Key .......................................................................................................................... 79 Leadership & Regs Key ..................................................................................................................... 80 K Investor Confidence ....................................................................................................................... 81 Commercialization ............................................................................................................................. 82 U.S. Leads Now ...................................................................................................................................... 83 Uniq: Tech Leadership Now .............................................................................................................. 84 Funding Key ........................................................................................................................................... 85 Funding Solves Problems ................................................................................................................... 86 Funding k Competition....................................................................................................................... 87 EU Model Bad ........................................................................................................................................ 88 AT: EU/UK ........................................................................................................................................ 89 2AC UK Answers............................................................................................................................... 91 China Model Bad .................................................................................................................................... 92 No Safety ............................................................................................................................................ 93 AT: Brazil CP ......................................................................................................................................... 94 U.S. Assistance Key Mexico .............................................................................................................. 95 ***Other CPs***.................................................................................................................................... 96 AT Precautionary Principle CP .............................................................................................................. 97 2AC PP CP Answers .......................................................................................................................... 98 Domestic Development CP .................................................................................................................... 99 2AC Domestic Develop Ans ............................................................................................................ 100 Coop Key ......................................................................................................................................... 101 Ban Nano CP ........................................................................................................................................ 103 2AC Ban Nano Answers .................................................................................................................. 104 Coop Key – Ban Fails ...................................................................................................................... 105 Conditions CP ....................................................................................................................................... 107 General Conditions 2AC .................................................................................................................. 108 S&T = Disad .................................................................................................................................... 109 K Answers................................................................................................................................................. 110 Framework ............................................................................................................................................ 111 Aff Stops Nano Wars ....................................................................................................................... 112 2AC Public Debate Key ................................................................................................................... 113 Public Debate = Real Change........................................................................................................... 114 Public Debate k Nano....................................................................................................................... 115 Experts k Public ............................................................................................................................... 116 Technical Language k Public ........................................................................................................... 117 Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 118 Brain Drain Advantage ......................................................................................................................... 119 1AC Brain Drain Scenario ............................................................................................................... 120 Uniq: Mexico S&T Collapsing ........................................................................................................ 123 Uniq: S&T Critical ........................................................................................................................... 124 Uniq: Brain Drain High .................................................................................................................... 125 Uniq: Brain Drain Now – Collapse Econ ......................................................................................... 128 Uniq: Brain Drain High .................................................................................................................... 130 Internals: Brain Drain Collapses Mexico Econ ................................................................................ 131 Internals Brain Drain = Loss Professionals ...................................................................................... 132 Impacts: Brain Drain k Competitiveness.......................................................................................... 133 Impacts: Mexico Econ ...................................................................................................................... 134 Impacts: Mexico Econ ...................................................................................................................... 135 Impacts: Mexico Econ (AT: Adv CPs) ............................................................................................ 136 Impacts: Mexican Econ .................................................................................................................... 137 Impacts: Mexican Econ .................................................................................................................... 138 Impacts: Econ Generic ..................................................................................................................... 139 Neg – Cant Solve Brain Drain.......................................................................................................... 140 Possible Nieto Credibility Advantage .................................................................................................. 141 CIR Impact Turn .............................................................................................................................. 142 S&T Leadership Advantage ................................................................................................................. 144 Uniq: S&T Collapsing Now ............................................................................................................. 145 Uniq: No S&T Now ......................................................................................................................... 146 Uniq: Funding Key ........................................................................................................................... 147 Uniq: S&T Leadership at Risk ......................................................................................................... 148 Uniq: S&T Declining ....................................................................................................................... 149 Links: Public Funding Key .............................................................................................................. 150 S&T Leadership Key (USAID) ........................................................................................................ 151 Internals: Nano Coop Solves National Devp ................................................................................... 152 Internals: USAID k........................................................................................................................... 153 Internals: Congres. Axn K: Commit................................................................................................. 154 Nano K ............................................................................................................................................. 155 Impacts: S&T K Leadership ............................................................................................................. 156 Internal Link Turn: Sci Dip k Effective Diplomacy ......................................................................... 157 Internals: NSF Key S&T .................................................................................................................. 158 Internals: NSF = Effective Model .................................................................................................... 159 Internals: OISE k S&T Coop ........................................................................................................... 160 Impacts: S&T Coop k Competitiveness ........................................................................................... 161 Impacts: Disease/Climate/Enviro (In 1AC) ..................................................................................... 162 Impacts: S&T Solves WMD/Prolif .................................................................................................. 163 Impacts: Solves the DIsad ................................................................................................................ 164 Impacts: Solves Coop – Disease/Relations ...................................................................................... 165 Impacts: IR, Relations, Poverty........................................................................................................ 167 Water Scarcity Advantage .................................................................................................................... 168 1AC Water Scarcity Scenario .......................................................................................................... 169 Uniq: Water Scarcity in LA Now ..................................................................................................... 175 Uniq: Water Crisis Now ................................................................................................................... 176 Uniq: Water Shortages Now ............................................................................................................ 178 Coop Key: Water.............................................................................................................................. 179 Solvency: Nano Solves Water in LA ............................................................................................... 180 Solvency: Water Pathogens .............................................................................................................. 181 Solvency: Desal ................................................................................................................................ 182 Solvency: Microsensors ................................................................................................................... 183 Solvency: Water Access ................................................................................................................... 184 Impacts: Water Wars ........................................................................................................................ 185 2AC: Water k Relations/Diplomacy ................................................................................................ 186 2AC Heavy Metal Add-on ............................................................................................................... 188 2AC Aquifers Add-on ...................................................................................................................... 189 2AC Run-off Add-on ....................................................................................................................... 190 2AC Renewable Energy Add-on ...................................................................................................... 192 Diseases Advantage .............................................................................................................................. 193 1AC Diseases Scenario .................................................................................................................... 194 Markets = Ineffective ....................................................................................................................... 195 Uniq: Neglected Diseases High ........................................................................................................ 197 Uniq: Risk High NTD ...................................................................................................................... 199 Solvency: Diseases ........................................................................................................................... 201 Solvency: Disease (Diagnostics) ...................................................................................................... 203 Solvency: Only Nano Solves............................................................................................................ 204 Solvency: NTDs (Nano) ................................................................................................................... 205 Solvency: Disease Prevention .......................................................................................................... 206 Solvency: Tech/Coop Key ............................................................................................................... 209 Possible 1AC Impact: State Fail....................................................................................................... 211 Impacts: Malaria............................................................................................................................... 213 Impacts: Econ ................................................................................................................................... 214 Inherency................................................................................................................................................... 215 No Development Now .......................................................................................................................... 216 2AC AT: SQ Solves ......................................................................................................................... 217 Current Dialogue Fails ..................................................................................................................... 218 Haphazard Coop Now ...................................................................................................................... 219 Mexico Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 220 2AC No Mexico Regs Now ............................................................................................................. 221 2AC Mexico Regs Add-ons ............................................................................................................. 222 Mexico Models China Now ............................................................................................................. 223 Regulations Good/Bad .............................................................................................................................. 224 Regulations Good ................................................................................................................................. 225 1AC/2AC Effective Regulations Key** .......................................................................................... 226 No Regs Now ................................................................................................................................... 227 Solves Nano Bad .............................................................................................................................. 228 Key to Commercial. ......................................................................................................................... 229 Safety................................................................................................................................................ 231 Environmental Protection ................................................................................................................. 232 No Regs Collapse Enviro ................................................................................................................. 233 Nanotoxins ....................................................................................................................................... 234 Regs k Solvency ............................................................................................................................... 235 2AC Bioweapons Add-on ................................................................................................................ 236 Nano O/Ws N/W .............................................................................................................................. 237 Regulations Bad.................................................................................................................................... 239 No Legal Definition ......................................................................................................................... 240 Regulations Fail................................................................................................................................ 241 U.S. Regs Ineffective ....................................................................................................................... 243 No Risk/No Impact........................................................................................................................... 244 Status Quo Solves Regs.................................................................................................................... 245 Self Regulation ................................................................................................................................. 246 Regs Kill Devp ................................................................................................................................. 247 Nano Good/Bad ........................................................................................................................................ 248 Nano Good............................................................................................................................................ 249 Warming ........................................................................................................................................... 250 Solves Tech ...................................................................................................................................... 251 Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 253 Bioterror ........................................................................................................................................... 256 Immortality ....................................................................................................................................... 257 Energy .............................................................................................................................................. 259 Space Colonization........................................................................................................................... 260 Poverty/Resrouce Scarcity ............................................................................................................... 261 Energy .............................................................................................................................................. 262 Ag ..................................................................................................................................................... 263 Space Col/Asteroids ......................................................................................................................... 264 AT Nanotech Impossible.................................................................................................................. 268 AT Nanotech Bad ............................................................................................................................. 269 AT: Grey Goo .................................................................................................................................. 271 Laundry list ...................................................................................................................................... 273 Nano Bad .............................................................................................................................................. 274 1NC Laundry List............................................................................................................................. 275 Health/Enviro ................................................................................................................................... 277 Weapons ........................................................................................................................................... 279 Wars ................................................................................................................................................. 280 Economy .......................................................................................................................................... 281 Self-Replication................................................................................................................................ 283 AI...................................................................................................................................................... 284 AT- Environment ............................................................................................................................. 285 AT: Batteries .................................................................................................................................... 287 Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 288 Pollution ........................................................................................................................................... 289 Latin America Key.................................................................................................................................... 290 U.S. Key Direct Resources ............................................................................................................... 291 Mexico Key – No National Plan ...................................................................................................... 292 2AC – Mexico Key - Regulations .................................................................................................... 293 Resource Shift .................................................................................................................................. 294 Government Key – Regs and R&D .................................................................................................. 295 Nat. Plan Key – U.S. Model ............................................................................................................. 296 Mexico Key – Nat. Plan Key ........................................................................................................... 297 Mexico Key – National Agenda ....................................................................................................... 298 Modeling............................................................................................................................................... 299 Mexico Key Model........................................................................................................................... 300 Mexico Key – Region-Specific Nano .............................................................................................. 301 1ACs 1AC Version 1.0 Observation 1: SQ Observation One: The Status Quo First, Nano Development in Mexico is on the rise – it’s unregulated and risks spinning out of control Inter Press Service 2k12 (Tierramérica, “MEXICO: Scientists Call For Regulation of Nanotechnology,” 03/12/2012, http://www.tierramerica.info/nota.php?lang=eng&idnews=3920&olt=568, AC) MEXICO CITY, Mar 12 (Tierramérica).- Nanotechnology, which is currently unregulated in Mexico , could pose serious threats to human health and the environment , cautions a new study. "Far from a policy of precaution vis-à-vis these new technologies, products are entering the market without regulation to guarantee their safety or labels to inform of their use," researcher Guillermo Foladori of the public Autonomous University of Zacatecas told Tierramérica. Foladori and his colleague Noela Invernizzi are the coauthors of a new report, "Implicaciones sociales y ambientales del desarrollo de las nanotecnologías en América Latina y el Caribe" (Social and Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology Development in Latin America and the Caribbean), presented on Mar. 7 in Mexico City. Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of matter on an atomic and molecular scale to change its physical and chemical properties, and is used in electronic components, cosmetics and packaging, among other products. And, haphazard development risks spilling over – Latin America is a potential hotbed for Nanotech, but lack of controls or vision risks disaster Foladori and Lau 2k7 (ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Zacatecas, México, “Nanotechnologies in Latin America,” pg online @ http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Manuskripte_81.pdf //um-ef) At the beginning of 2002, all nanotechnology-related research became an area of strategic importance, with some funding directed to support its development. The Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnología 2001-2006 (Special Program for Science and Technology 2001-2006), which is embedded inside the National Development Plan 2001-2006, views nanotechnology as a strategic area within the science of advanced materials. In the same document, the core areas to be developed are depicted in detail and include nanostructures, semiconductors, metallurgy, biomaterials, optical components, advance ceramics and modulation of materials and processes. Additionally, the Development Plan reviews the available resources in research centers with a special focus on human resources, equipment and the connections they have with industry. The Programa Especial points out the pressing need for creating a national plan on nanotechnology development and the necessity to encourage the formation of networks for scientific exchange in the area (CONACYT, 2002). Moreover, the National Development Plan 2001-2006 identifies nanotechnology research as an important subfield inside the energy sector, above all others within the framework of the Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo (“IMP”) (Mexican Institute of Petroleum). The conditions and provisions to create and implement a National Initiative for Nanotechnology Development were present, but the lack of funding and the absence of an executive plan created barriers to fully develop a national initiative for nanotechnology. In this regard, the budget for Science and Technology (“S&T”) has dramatically decreased in the last five years. In the National Development Plan, it was expected that the disbursement for Research and Development (“R&D”) would reach 1% of Gross National Product (“GDP”) by 2006. By 2004 this estimate was reduced to 0.5% of GDP and by 2005 it barely reached 0.4%. This could change at any time. One indicator of change is the report issued by the Committee for Science and Technology of the Senate of the Republic in 2005. In this document, the Committee pronounced itself in favor of preparation for a National Emergency Program for investment in research and teaching of nanotechnology (Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología, Senado de la República, 2005). Several researchers and specialists in the nanoscience field worked in a partnership to create the Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnología 2001-2006, reviewing a large number of national programs for nanotechnology research in other countries, particularly the National Nanotechnology Initiative of the U.S. After a review of nanotechnology initiatives, it is surprising that the Programa Especial does not make any reference to the possible risks to health and the environment related to the use of nanotechnology— neither its ethical and legal implications, nor the public participation in what many scientists see as the most important technological revolution of the 21st century. The absence of concern associated with the use of nano technology in México becomes worrying because of the increasing number of lab oratorie s in the area. Furthermore, many of them are already using clean rooms and very sophisticated equipment with the main objective of encouraging the production of nanocomponents for the industrial sector . In the same vein, Argentina and Brazil do not have a program to discuss the implications and risks of nanotechnology, or a plan to supervise the activities related to nanotechnology r esearch and d evelopment. In this regard, it is clear that the distance between Latin America and its European and North American counterparts is expanding. Due to the absence of a National Nanotechnology Initiative, México has turned its attention to different research centers in search for bilateral or multilateral agreements to foster the creation of scientific networks in the area. A report, written by Malsch Technovaluation relating to micro- and nanotechnology in México, points out that there are eleven research groups located in three universities and two research institutes, with ninety researchers in the area of nanotechnology (Lieffering, 2004; Malsch, & Lieffering, 2004). Other sources estimate the number of researchers working on nanotechnology in México at between 300 and 500. It is beyond the aim of this article to provide a complete picture of the status of nanotechnology in México, but it is worth mentioning some of the efforts made in this regard. This Causes Toxic Poisoning of the Environment Vandermolen 2k6 (LCDR Thomas D. Vandermolen, USN (BS, Louisiana Tech University; MA, Naval War College), is officer in charge, Maritime Science and Technology Center, Yokosuka, Japan. He was previously assigned as a student at the Naval War College, Newport Naval Station, Rhode Island. He has also served as intelligence officer for Carrier Wing Five, Naval Air Facility, Atsugi, Japan, and in similar assignments with US Special Operations Command, US Forces Korea, and Sea Control Squadron THIRTY-FIVE, Naval Air Station, North Island, California. AIR & SPACE POWER JOUNRAL, Fall, 2006, “Molecular nanotechnology and national security,” pg online @ http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/fal06/vandermolen.html //um-ef) Damage. MNT was originally perceived as a potential cure-all for a variety of environmental problems: nanobots in the atmosphere, for example, could physically repair the ozone layer or remove greenhouse gases. Recently, however, NT is increasingly seen as a potential environmental problem in its own right. Both NT and MNT are expected to produce large quantities of nanoparticles and other disposable nanoproducts, the environmental effects of which are currently unknown. This “nanolitter,” small enough to penetrate living cells, raises the possibility of toxic poisoning of organs , either from the nanolitter itself or from toxic elements attached to those nanoparticles. Environmental 26 Extinction CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz) Subquestion F : Environmental devastation by overproduction? Preliminary answer: It would be easy to build enough nano-litter to cause serious pollution problems . Small nano-built devices in particular will be difficult to collect after use. It will also be easy to consume enough energy to change microclimate and even global climate . Overpopulation is probably not a concern, even in the event of extreme life/health extension. The more people use high technology, the fewer children they seem to have. Provisional threats to the human race . conclusion : Several plausible disaster scenarios appear to pose existential Plan Text Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase nanotechnology assistance with Mexico. Observation 2: Mexico Observation Two: Mexico First, Nanotech is a potential savior for the developing world, but current nanotech policies avoid places like Latin America - despite substantial market opportunity, businesses refuse to invest—we link turn your k Wilson Center 2k7 (Woodrow Wilson Internatonal Center for scholars “The promise of Nanotechnology” may 2007 pg online @ http://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/the-promise-nanotechnology //um-ef) The market opportunity is substantial. Nanotechnology has been incorporated into billions of dollars worth of manufactured goods. An online inventory maintained by the Project since March 2006 contains nearly 400 manufacturer-identified, nanotechnology-based consumer products already on the market. The inventory includes a range of fitness, food, electronic, automotive, and home and garden products, and the rapid pace of commercialization will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Many business and government leaders describe nanotechnology as "the next Industrial Revolution," yet the environmental and health impacts remain unknown, and there is great need to assess and study the implications and how institutions can adapt to this new technology. By publishing reports, hosting seminars, conducting surveys, and testifying at congressional and agency hearings, the Project seeks to inform industry, government, and the public about nanotechnology's potential hazards as well as the vast benefits and future opportunities. Health Opportunities Nanomedicine is a rapidly growing field that holds the promise of new vaccines, medical treatments, and cures. By manipulating molecules, scientists will be able to create drugs that treat cancer, engineer materials to replace diseased organs, repair nerve damage, and improve prosthetic limbs, among many other medical breakthroughs. A new report, Nanofrontiers: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology, released by the Project in conjunction with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), summarizes discussions that took place at the Wilson Center among dozens of scientists, engineers, ethicists, policymakers, and other experts on the long-term potential of nanotechnology. One section of the report focuses on the groundbreaking work of biologists and chemists in revolutionizing medicine. One such scientist, Dr. Samuel I. Stupp, nanotechnology can be used to mobilize the body's own healing abilities to repair or regenerate damaged cells, and his director of the Institute of BioNanotechnology in Medicine at Northwestern University, suggests that early clinical studies have yielded incredible results. His work has implications for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, both diseases in which key brain cells stop working properly. Similarly, Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, envisions nanotechnology leading to a radical transformation in health care, making it more predictive, preemptive, and personalized. Dr. Stupp said about his work with laboratory animals, "By injecting molecules that were designed to self-assemble into nanostructures in the spinal tissue, we have been able to rescue and re-grow rapidly damaged neurons. The nanofibers—thousands of times thinner than a human hair—are the key to not only preventing the formation of harmful scar tissue which inhibits spinal cord healing, but to stimulating the body into regenerating lost or damaged cells." Advances in nanotechnology have the potential to improve health benefits for the more than five billion people in the developing world . At a Wilson Center seminar in March, Dr. Peter A. Singer, senior scientist at the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said, " Nanotechnology might provide less-industrialized countries with powerful new tools for diagnosing and treating disease, and might increase the availability of clean water." But there are numerous obstacles. " Business has little incentive to invest as shown by the lack of new drugs for… diseases that disproportionately affect people in developing countries," Meanwhile, he added, government foreign assistance agencies and Singer said. nongovernmental organizations ( NGOs) do not focus, or focus adequately, on how nanotechnology could improve health in developing countries . "Countries like Brazil, India, China and South Africa have s ignificant nanotechnology research initiatives that could be directed toward the particular needs of the poor," noted Dr. Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for the Project. "But there is still a danger—if market forces are the only dynamic— that small minorities of people in wealthy nations will benefit from nanotechnology breakthroughs in the health sector, while large majorities, mainly in the developing world, will not . Responsible development of nanotechnology must include benefits for people in both rich and poor nations and at relatively low cost." This is specifically true in Latin America Foladori and Lau 2k7 (ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Zacatecas, México, “Nanotechnologies in Latin America,” pg online @ http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Manuskripte_81.pdf //um-ef) There has been little coverage in the international media about the development of nanotechnologies in Latin America ; even though some countries in the region have allocated large amounts of resources to get on board the nanotechnological wave. Brazil, in 2001, launched a national program to endorse the formation of research networks on nanotechnnology development. This came about shortly after the United States (US) presented its National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2001 with a budget of USD 500-million. In Mexico, dozens of public research centers entered the new century by signing several research agreements with foreign institutions; these institutions also opened graduate courses centered on nanotechnology- related research. In Argentina, since 2005, the Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (National Commission of Atomic Energy) was strengthened by directing most of its scarce resources to promote the development of nanotechnology in the nation. COLCIENCIAS, the Colombian institution in charge of S&T, included, in 2004, the area of “advanced materials and nanotechnology” in its research plan. There are other countries with a smaller presence in the area but that have officially allocated some resources to this purpose or have created centers focused on the R&D of nanotechnologies. Brazil, Argentina and México are the leading countries in nanotechnology R&D in Latin America. In Brazil, there are currently ten scientific research networks working on nanotechnology, all divided according to their areas of interest. Argentina has currently four active networks. In Mexico, the organization is much more decentralized, with the largest university, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), concentrating the most the human resources working in the area, with more than 300 researchers. In Colombia there are about 34 research groups undertaking research in nanotechnology. The role of the private sector in nanotechnology development in these countries and in most of Latin America is still ambiguous. History has shown that the Latin American private sector has not been closely engaged with the R&D of new technologies . The general trend is that companies wait for either the government or public research centers to innovate so they can later make free use of the discoveries. Most scientists see this as the most significant disadvantage, particularly, because in this context, there are very limited possibilities to organize innovation around the development of new merchandise. However, the division between the private and the public sector in Latin America can open a window of opportunity to create large public companies with an interest in applying nanotechnology for the well-being of society . This , of course, would have to include as: most of the nonprofitable areas of nanotechnology development such potable water, public health, massive education, popular housing and many others. It is worth mentioning that the main, if not the only, incentive behind nanotechnology development in Latin America is to encourage an increase in competitiveness. This subject is a matter of concern because the region has clear examples of the consequences of the constant search for an increase in international competitiveness while ignoring social indicators. The case of Mexico is, in this regard, very illustrative. There is neither a mechanical nor a linear correlation between good macroeconomic performance and the improvement of the living conditions of the population. The income concentration and inequality are features of the Latin-American social structure that will not be solved, at least mechanically, by just having a better position in the world market. Internationally, there is an ongoing debate about the potential health and environmental risks of the use of nanotechnology. In Latin America, the debate is still at its dawn. In 2007, some institutions in Argentina and Brazil have discreetly raised the importance of discussing those issues. It is clear that the subjects should be opened to the scrutiny of the public in a transparent manner as soon as possible. Further, the discussion about the social and ethical implications of the use of this technology is absent in the institutional and academic arena, even though it has been raised by some trade unions. In the region, where inequality is already an important challenge, the changes in the industrial apparatus that nanotechnology will bring are a matter of concern for the working sector and some other social groups. In this context, it is not a surprise to discover the lack of linkage between R&D and the social needs that are widespread throughout Latin America. This link, of course, is absent inside the nanotechnology programs and is completely ignored in the policy rationale behind their implementation. Collaboration is key – only way to ensure Pro-Poor Research Lodwick et al 7 (T. Lodwick*, R. Rodrigues**, R. Sandler***, W.D. Kay**** * Nanotechnology and Society Research Group (NSRG), Northeastern University **Santa Clara University, School of Law, ***NSRG, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, ****NSRG, Deapartment of Political Science, Northeastern University, “nanotechnology and the global poor: the united states policy and international collaborations” pg online @ http://www.nsti.org/procs/Nanotech2007v1/8/T81.501, AC) Perhaps the most basic barrier to conducting nanotechnology research is equipment costs. One way for a researcher in a developing nation to reduce these costs is by collaborating with a researcher from another developing nation (South-South collaboration), or with a researcher from a developed nation (North-South collaboration). Each type of partnership has benefits and limitations. While South-South research is more likely to focus on developing world problems, resources may still be constrained; and while North-South collaboration enables access to high-tech facilities, little incentive exists for developed world researchers to partake in such collaborations. The lack of incentives for researchers in the developed world to aid the developing world is a critical barrier to diffusing nanotech nology. There is little or no financial incentive for developed world researchers to make the required effort to work with developing world researchers . Similarly, there are very few funding sources that exist to provide incentives for developed world researchers to independently address the social problems facing the developing world (pro-poor research ). And, Nanotech in Latin America is critical – Saves thousands of lives and provides the best laboratories for development of disease prevention techniques VOA News 2k9 (“Nanotechnology Could Improve Health Care in Developing Countries,” pg online @ http://www.voanews.com/articleprintview/347615.html //um-ef) Scientists say nanotechnology, which involves some of the smallest things on earth , could have a big impact in developing countries . And some of the biggest benefits could come in improving health. Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate materials on the nanometer scale. How small is that? A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter - something like the length of a line,10 atoms long. That's hard to grasp, so nanotech scientist Andrew Maynard explains it with an analogy. If you can imagine a child the size of the Moon, "a tennis ball will be something like 50 nanometers in diameter. Or the head of a pin will be one nanometer in diameter. So the difference in scale, going from human scale to the nanoscale, is the equivalent of taking the moon and putting the head of a pin on the moon." Maynard is chief scientist at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, part of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. At a recent symposium, he said researchers have been using nanotechnology to create products like cosmetics and stain resistant clothing. But some of the most promising uses of nanotechnology are in the health field. In sub-Saharan Africa each year, malaria kills a million children under the age of five . A big part of the malaria challenge is correctly diagnosing patients . Often, antimalaria drugs are given without a proper diagnosis, to people who may not have malaria. That's not only wasteful, it contributes to drug resistance . Peter Singer of the University of Toronto says a nanotechnology called quantum dots could make it much easier to correctly diagnose malaria, instead of using the traditional method of examining a patient's blood under a microscope . "The bottom line," says Singer, "is that changing the infrastructure from moderate infrastructure like microscopes, to minimal infrastructure, like the quantum dots I was showing you, saves hundreds of thousands of lives for malaria. So this is a serious public health issue at stake, just from a diagnostic." In addition to better diagnostics, nanotechnology could also help in treating disease. For example, as Piotr Grodzinski of the U.S. National Cancer Institute points out, it could help make existing medicines more effective. "You can develop techniques which allow [doctors] to deliver the therapeutic drug or therapeutic treatment locally to the tumor site, and in many cases use much lower dose of the drug, and by that means cause lower side effects." Advances in nanotechnology are coming out of labs in the usual advanced countries. But scientists in developing and emerging countries - China, India and Brazil, for example - are also involved. However, as program moderator Jeff Spieler of the U.S. Agency for International Development cautioned, it's still a big step getting those innovations to some of the world's poorest people . " This to some extent will depend on how many of the new innovations will actually be coming from the laboratories of less developed countries ," said Spieler, "and then what is the likelihood of that these advances, even in those laboratories, will find their way into the indigenous populations of those countries and not be picked up by somebody else?" Although nanotech experts stress the potential benefits from the new technology, they also concede that there are risks involved in working with these new nano materials. Andrew Maynard of the Woodrow Wilson Center acknowledged the uncertainties. "If you look at the very simplest case of nanometer-size particles, we know they behave differently in the body and in the environment [compared] to larger, more conventional particles," Maynard explained. "So yes, there are going to be a whole new set of risk issues we need to address, and that's going to require quite a substantial investment in new science to understand what those risks are, but also how to translate and transform that information into effective and safe ways of using the technologies." Among those at risk could be workers involved in manufacturing new nano-scale materials, as well as consumers, such as those taking nano-based medicines. And, Disease spread causes extinction Yu 2k9 (5/22, Victoria, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, "Human extinction: the uncertainty of our fate", http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/humanextinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate) A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the bestknown case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a largescale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10). Nanotech solves disease—reject generic defense—quantum dots sidestep conventional disease prevention Court et al 04 (E. Court*, A. Daar**, E. Martin***, T. Acharya****, P. Singer***** *University of Toronto Joint Center for Bioethics, Canada **McLaughlin Centre for Molecular Medicine and Departments of Public Health Sciences and Surgery, University of Toronto; University of Toronto Joint Center for Bioethics, Canada ***University of Toronto Joint Center for Bioethics, Canada ****University of Toronto Joint Center for Bioethics, Canada ***** University of Toronto Joint Center for Bioethics, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada, “Will Prince Charles et al diminish the opportunities of developing countries in nanotechnology?”, 01/28/2004, http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/indepth/18909//VS) Nanotechnology offers a range of potential benefits for developing countries. Nanometre-sized quantum dots can be used to tag biological molecules for the identification of proteins that indicate disease status7 without many of the drawbacks associated with conventional organic dyes used to mark cells8. Quantum dots could eventually be used in clinical diagnostic tests to quickly detect molecules associated with cancer cells and HIV/AIDS. This has great relevance to developing countries, where over 95% of new HIV infections occurred in 20029. Quantum dot optical biosensors can be used for the detection of TB10, which along with HIV and Malaria is responsible for half of infectious disease mortality in developing countries11. In India, the Central Scientific Instruments Organization has recently announced plans for the development of a prototype nanotechnology-based TB diagnostic kit which would reduce the cost and time required for TB tests and also use a smaller amount of blood for testing12. Further, quantum dots and other nanomaterials could be integrated with microtechnology to develop inexpensive miniaturized devices for medical diagnostics. The size of these devices would allow them to be easily used in remote regions. Vaccinations that have greatly reduced child mortality in developing countries13 could be administered in a more controlled and targeted manner using nanoparticle delivery systems14, 15. Two US-patented nanoparticle drug delivery systems16, 17 developed by researchers at the University of Delhi have already been transferred to Indian industry for commercialization. Nanotechnology-based bone scaffolds have the ability to repair damaged skeletal tissue caused by injury resulting from road traffic accidents, the so-called “unseen epidemic” 18 of developing countries. In China, a recently developed nanotechnology bone scaffold has been tested in 26 hospital patients19. Enzyme biosensors can be used to monitor soil and crop toxicity levels to improve agricultural quality control in developing countries20. Water purification technologies have been recognized as one of several key nanotechnology applications for developing countries21. The University of Brazil is currently conducting research on nanomagnets that would be attracted to oil to aid the clean-up of large oil spills. Many of these activities, of course, also hold promise for economic development. And, Mexico is key – Provides a Nano Model for Developing Countries – Lau 08 Researcher of the Latin American Nanotechnology & Society Network ¶ (ReLANS); PhD. ¶ Candidate in Development Studies at the Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas (Edgar Zayago, “Nanotechnology may be more useful for Mexican society”, 2008, http://www.utwente.nl/mesaplus/nanoforumeula/interviews_visiting_researcher/edg arlau.pdf//VS) As one of the handful of countries pursuing nanotechnology development in Latin America, ¶ and the one with perhaps the closest relationship with U.S.-based nanotechnology partners, ¶ México assumes a leading position in the appropriate development and implementation of the ¶ industry . Over the long-term, if México achieves some measure of success in ensuring that the ¶ nanotechnology industry development is carried out in a reflexive and responsive manner , ¶ while compensating for the potential social / economic / legal / environmental pitfalls, it will ¶ become the model to be emulated as nanotechnology endeavors are pursued by others in the ¶ region . These issues are at the core of the project conducted during the research visit in ¶ Twente. ¶ A further benefit accrues from integrating partnerships with European partners, in the ¶ strengthening of the network of researchers and the transfer of knowledge in both directions. ¶ Given the situation in México, with an entirely science- and business-driven conceptualization ¶ of nanotechnological development, there is a need to undertake an assessment of these new ¶ technologies, and augment existing analytical capacity to implement appropriate reflexive and ¶ above all social assessments. Observation 3: U.S. Observation Three: The United States First, U.S. Tech Leadership is collapsing and that’s an existential risk Dr. Hummell et al 2k12 (Robert Hummel, PhD1,*, Policy Research Division, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies,, Patrick Cheetham1, Justin Rossi1, Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy 2012 “US Science and Technology Leadership, and Technology Grand Challenges,” pg online @ http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol3_g/Hummel_2012_G14-39.pdf //um-ef) Taken together, there is no direct evidence that the US has been overtaken in quality of S&T output, and most indications support the US leads the world in s cience and t echnology in all fields. However, the trends are not favorable to maintenance of this position, and it seems likely that in some fields, US notion that the leadership could falter. When such cross-over might occur, or in what fields, and whether it is inevitable, is uncertain. DoD policy implications While a gradual decline in US S&T leadership does not provide a “Sputnik moment” (65),ix it an existential threat poses no less of . When technical innovations occur in potentially adversarial countries or domains, a strategy that relies on technological superiority for defense capabilities will no longer suffice. If a potential adversary can introduce a disruptive technological capability, they can then use deterrence or influence to control behaviors, compete economically, secure scarce resources, and control diplomatic agendas The US strategy continues to depend on technological superiority . Thus from a DoD perspective, it is imperative that the US maintain its position of technological leadership. A Senate Armed Services Committee (subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities) hearing on the “Health and Status of the Defense Industrial Base and its S&T-related elements” (66)xi took place in May 2011, and highlighted some of the issues and potential solution paths. Those testifying called for a comprehensive strategy for the US to maintain technological leadership well into the 21st century. Many other specific suggestions were made during that hearing as to ways to support the industrial base and to assist the partnership of DoD and the defense industrial base to utilize technology advances efficiently. Future prospects Many remedies have been proposed to ensure continued US technology leadership, in the face of challenges and stresses within the US S&T enterprise. Some of the typical concerns are overall funding levels, DoD funding for S&T, the efficiency of the application of funds to S&T, and the emphasis of disciplines within S&T. Other concerns include regulations and impediments to research in S&T, and the production rate of scientists and the career opportunities. We have noted many of these issues in our survey of elements of the S&T enterprise. The larger concern is over the respect in which science and technology is held within our society. Since research is an intermediate product, often accomplished years before product and societal benefits, there is often little appreciation of the role of the researcher and inventor. After World War II, there was great respect afforded scientists, particularly physicists. Post-Sputnik, there was a deliberate effort to elevate the stature of science and technology, and the manned space program certainly contributed to societal respect. Some argue that it is because there has been a precipitous off-shoring of manufacturing that the generation of new ideas has moved overseas (67). Andy Grove of Intel makes a complementary argument: That as manufacturing moves overseas, American companies lose the knowledge of how to scale up new ideas to full-scale production (68). Both arguments suggest there are reduced incentives for domestic research as manufacturing moves elsewhere, and lead to the conclusion that research is best performed by those with familiarity of product production. Thus, they argue that we need to reinvigorate manufacturing and production for economic vitality so that technology development and leadership will follow. And, indeed, the nation has an Advanced Manufacturing Initiative, and many cite a resurgence of domestic manufacturing as incentives normalize to less favor off-shoring. Summing up the landscape The US has the best universities, the most winners of the Nobel Prize, the best young scientists, and the largest investment in research and development of any can it be that the US is apparently losing its lead in science and technology? The answer isn’t that the US has slowed down, although according to some the rate of technical progress has, indeed, slowed. The fact is that the competition has discovered the importance of innovation, and has begun to reap rewards from speeding up. We have seen that China especially is mustering its nation on earth. So how considerable resources to develop what they call an “innovation economy,” but that other nations, as well as Europe, highly value science and engineering, and implicitly or tacitly have begun to challenge US technology leadership. At the same time, the globalization of research and ease with which international science collaborations take place mean that continued US leadership requires full engagement with the international scientific community. Thus, impediments to exchange of information and bureaucracy in the conduct of US research are counter-productive. According to Bill Gates, you always have to renew your lead.xii The US has the resources and infrastructure necessary to maintain and renew a lead in technology. But momentum is not coasting in science and technology will jeopardize national security, and also jeopardize the economic and societal benefits of being first to market with technological innovations. No single agency or entity within the United States can enact a strategy to renew sufficient. In light of concerted efforts in other nations, the technology lead. Instead, continued US technical leadership will require a dedicated and coordinated effort throughout the society. And, Locking-in Tech leadership reduces conflict Goldstein 2k7 Avery Goldstein, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania, Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, holds a Ph.D. from the University of California-Berkeley, 2007 (“Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical expectations and evidence,” Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume 30, Number 4-5, August-October, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Taylor & Francis Online, p. 647-648) Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences for international politics of a shift in power between a dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World peace prevails when a dominant state’s capabilities enable it to ‘govern’ an international order that it has shaped. Over time, however, as economic and technological diffusion proceeds during eras of peace and development, other states are empowered. Moreover, the burdens of international governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon, and challengers eventually emerge who seek to rewrite the rules of governance. As the power advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may become desperate enough to resort to the ultima ratio of international politics, force, to forestall the increasingly urgent demands of a rising challenger. Or as the power of the challenger rises, it may be tempted to press its case with threats to use force. It is the rise and fall of the great powers that creates the circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin labels ‘hegemonic wars’, break out .13 Gilpin’s argument logically encourages pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation that international trade, investment, and technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic power, benefiting the rapidly developing states of the world, including China. As the US simultaneously scurries to put out the many brushfires that threaten its farPolitics, Robert Gilpin suggested that flung global interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be unable to devote sufficient resources to maintain or restore its former advantage over emerging competitors like China. While the erosion of the The expectation is an increase in the likelihood for the use of force – either by a Chinese challenger able to field a stronger military in support of its demands for greater influence over international arrangements in Asia, or by a besieged American hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends that alarm [end page 647] those who would look at Asia through the lens of Gilpin’s theory are China’s expanding share of world trade and wealth (much of it resulting from the gains once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find it ever more difficult to preserve the order in Asia that it created during its era of preponderance. made possible by the international economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition of technology in key sectors that have both civilian and military applications (e.g., information, communications, and electronics linked with the ‘revolution in military affairs’); and an expanding military burden for the US (as it copes with the challenges of its global war on terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq) that limits the resources it can devote to preserving its interests in East Asia.14 Although similar to Gilpin’s work insofar as it emphasizes the importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominant state and a rising challenger, the powertransition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger focuses more closely on the allegedly dangerous phenomenon of ‘crossover’– the point at which a dissatisfied challenger is about to overtake when the power gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly desperate to forestall, and the challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition to a new international order whose contours it will define. the established leading state.15 In such cases, Unfortunately, Funding cuts have hampered USAIDS efforts in technological assistance—greater funding is necessary to utilize USAID’s unique leadership Miotke 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Foreign Service Officer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Science, Space, and Health (Jeff, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG110hhrg41470.htm)//RH USAID plays a significant role in integrating the products of S&T to meet the challenges of economic, environmental, and social development. USAID supports research primarily in the areas of agriculture and health and is directed towards applied problems. The technologies and results from r esearch and d evelopment supported by other federal agencies and the private sector is, however, integrated across the Agency's work in areas such as information technology, infrastructure, climate change, energy, clean water, environmental management, social safety nets and education. Among federal agencies, USAID has the unique mandate for applied work on the ground in more than seventy developing countries. USAID leverages the expertise of U.S. universities, private companies, and other federal agencies in partnerships with governments , research institutions, USAID and the private sector in developing countries. In recent years, USAID funding cuts have greatly scaled back the Agency's support for training in s cience and t echnology compared to the 1980s. The Agency still supports modest programs of capacity building as integral to its agricultural research and higher education development programs. USAID is seen as an international leader in areas such as agricultural biotechnology, contraceptives research, nutrition, vaccines, and the application of geospatial information to climate analysis and response. USAID is one of the only donors to support the development of improved crops using modern biotechnology, providing broader access to this technology by scientists, and eventually small farmers in Africa and Asia. USAID is also a major donor to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a network of research centers in developing countries which formed the basis of the Green Revolution. Rising international food prices due to rising food demands threatens the welfare of the world's poor. USAID's leadership in the CGIAR will be a critical component of an international effort to raise productivity and meet this growing food demand. USAID's program to apply geospatial information technology to improve disaster response, weather forecasting, and monitoring of fires, ocean tides, and air quality in Central America was highlighted as an early accomplishment under GEOSS and is now expanding with USAID support to Africa. USAID invests in bilateral scientific cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistani research and engineering communities. A series of some 40 cooperative R&D efforts, involving several hundred researchers focus on areas that contribute to broader USAID development objectives in public health, agriculture, water and the environment, education and other sectors. The program, implemented by the National Academy of Sciences, is a true bilateral partnership, with USAID funding U.S. research partners and the Government of Pakistan funding the Pakistani scientists and engineers . All of this activity is and students on both sides, implemented under the auspices of an S&T cooperation agreement negotiated by OES. And, Assistance in the form of technological cooperation in nanotech enhances US global technology leadership Dr. Mendis 2k4 [Dr. Patrick Mendis adjunct associate professor of economics and management at the UMUC Graduate School of Management and Technology at the University of Maryland “Science, Technology, And Intellectual Property Rights In American Foreign Policy”. Journal of Technology Law & Policy.Vol 9 June 2004 Issue 1.http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol9/issue1/mendis.html] In coming years, global S&T cooperation will open a wide range of opportunities to advance America's foreign policy and international trade promotion goals including: 1. By reaching out to scientists, scholars, and technology-minded young entrepreneurs in other countries, the U nited S tates would promote American idealism and democratic governance because international S&T activities are a neutral and apolitical instrument for peaceful change. 2. International S&T collaboration facilitates democratic changes and promotes open trade with other countries . This would lighten the American military's mission to protect national security and maintain global peace. 3 . Within the framework of global institutions, American S&T collaborative agreements help create a better environmental, scientific, and technological infrastructure in other countries promoting American business and economic interests and to protecting IPRs and equitable access lo their markets. This is an extension of the U.S. Constitution and its enshrined democratic values which can be shared broadly with other nations. 4. By implementing the Agenda 21 of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 in Brazil and subsequently the World Summit on Sustainable Development of 2002 in Johannesburg in South Africa, the United States helped efforts to create a series of MEAs that will demand transnational solutions in science and technology fields. The American geospatial technology, biotechnology, and leadership in new nanotechnology will not only promote economic growth domestically but also enhance the stewardship of the global environment and sustainable development strategies. 5. By promoting the current status of cooperative S&T agreements, the United States enhances its ability to deal with global dangers like terrorism, narcotics, and other criminal activities that threaten our national security and domestic peace and prosperity. Nanotech development assistance paves the way for regulatory frameworks and commerce Lodwick et al 2k7 (T. Lodwick*, R. Rodrigues**, R. Sandler***, W.D. Kay**** * Nanotechnology and Society Research Group (NSRG), Northeastern University **Santa Clara University, School of Law, ***NSRG, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, ****NSRG, Deapartment of Political Science, Northeastern University, “nanotechnology and the global poor: the united states policy and international collaborations” pg online @ http://www.nsti.org/procs/Nanotech2007v1/8/T81.501 //um-ef) the greatest potential for a broad initiative rests with the main foreign aid organizations, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which have experience funding development related research. Although USAID currently lacks any programs linking nanotechnology and development, its Collaborative Agricultural Biotechnology Initiative (CABIO), designed to bring biotechnology to developing nations, serves as a promising framework for nanotech nology. CABIO funds partnerships between U.S. research organizations and developing world scientists to tackle specific issues. For example, with USAID funding, researchers at Purdue University have worked closely with African scientists to develop a strain of sorghum resistant to the parasitic weed striga. After many years, a successful strain was developed which has helped prevent famine ensure food security through responsible science [6]. In addition to establishing and supporting partnerships, USAID’s biotechnology efforts including sponsoring developing world students for U.S. graduate degrees and supporting agricultural education in participating countries. USAID also helped develop India’s Department of Biotechnology. And CABIO works to build However, regulatory capacity to ensure safe biotechnology practices. Each of these types of efforts-building partnerships and collaborations, and researcher exchanges-- could supporting education in the US and in country, building institutional capacity, be extended to nanotech nology. Overall, USAID’s biotechnology experience provides a sound model for infusing nanotech nology into development. US nanotech leadership ensures international regulation, resulting in controlled military nanotech Vandermolen 2k6 (LCDR Thomas D. Vandermolen, USN (BS, Louisiana Tech University; MA, Naval War College), is officer in charge, Maritime Science and Technology Center, Yokosuka, Japan. He was previously assigned as a student at the Naval War College, Newport Naval Station, Rhode Island. He has also served as intelligence officer for Carrier Wing Five, Naval Air Facility, Atsugi, Japan, and in similar assignments with US Special Operations Command, US Forces Korea, and Sea Control Squadron THIRTY-FIVE, Air & Space Power Jounral, “Molecular nanotechnology and national security, pg online @ http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/fal06/vandermolen. html //um-ef) MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY (MNT), when fully developed, will provide the basis for the next technological revolution, possibly the most beneficial and yet most disruptive in human history. By allowing inexpensive mass production with atomic-level precision, this infant technology has the potential to create whole new classes of weapons and economic, political, and social disruptions serious enough to threaten international security . To minimize the threats while maximizing the benefits of MNT’s impending development, the U nited S tates should take the lead in creating a cooperative strategy of international regulation and do so as soon as possible. MNT’s arrival will cause an avalanche of problems and threats, many of which the human race has not yet encountered; the control strategy must therefore be ready before that day arrives . Unregulated development of nanotech risks a new arms race – increases the probability of miscalc Gubrud 97 (Mark Avrum Gubrud, a research associate, Center for Superconductivity Research (University of Maryland, College Park), is ''a physicist, writer and social activist, November 1997, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/, “Nanotechnology and International Security”) The greatest danger coincides with the emergence of these powerful technologies: A quickening succession of "revolutions" may spark a new arms race involving a number of potential competitors. Older systems, including nuclear weapons, would become vulnerable to novel forms of attack or neutralization. Rapidly evolving, untested, secret, and even "virtual" arsenals would undermine confidence in the ability to retaliate or resist aggression. Warning and decision times would shrink. Covert infiltration of intelligence and sabotage devices would blur the distinction between confrontation and war. Overt deployment of ultramodern weapons, perhaps on a massive scale, would alarm technological laggards. Actual and perceived power balances would shift dramatically and abruptly. Accompanied by economic upheaval, general uncertainty and disputes over the future of major resources and of humanity itself, such a runaway crisis would likely erupt into large-scale rearmament and warfare well before another technological plateau was reached. International regimes combining arms control, verification and transparency, collective security and limited military capabilities, can be proposed in order to maintain stability. However, these would require unprecedented levels of cooperation and restraint , and would be prone to collapse if nations persist in challenging each other with threats of force . If we believe that assemblers are feasible, perhaps the most important implication is this: Ultimately, we will need an integrated international security system. For the present, failure to consider alternatives to unilateral "peace through strength" puts us on a course toward the next world war . US action and model is key to cooperation and transparency Altmann 2k4 (Jurgen, Phd. physics doctoral dissertation on laser radar (University of Hamburg, Germany, since 1985 he has studied scientifictechnical problems of disarmament, first concerning high-energy laser weapons, founded the Bochum Verification Project (RuhrUniversity Bochum, Germany) that does research into the potential of automatic sensor systems for co-operative verification of disarmament and peace agreements. In recent years, he has studied military uses of, first, microsystems technologies and then nanotechnology, with a view towards preventive arms control (both at University of Dortmund, Germany). University of Dortmund). cofounder of the German Research Association Science, Disarmament and International Security FONAS, and currently is a deputy speaker of the Committee Physics and Disarmament of the German Physical Society, military uses of nanotechnology: perspectives and concerns, security dialogue, vol 35, pg online @ http://scx.sagepub.com/content/34/1/115.full.pdf+html ) It is predicted that nanotechnology (NT) will bring revolutionary changes in many areas, with the potential for both great benefits and great risks. Developments in the military could entail specific dangers, containment of which will need special analysis and effort. Military research and development in NT is expanding rapidly. Potential future applications span all areas of warfare. Special dangers to arms control and stability may arise from new biological weapons and microrobots. For humans and society, non-medical body implants – possibly made more acceptable via the military – raise a number of problems concerning human nature. Further research is needed to find the best way to avoid possible dangers. For the near and medium term, several guidelines for limits and restrictions are suggested. As a first step, transparency and international cooperation should be improved . NANOTECHNOLOGY (NT) WILL BE THE BACKBONE of the next fundamental technology wave.1 Science and technology have advanced to a point where structuring matter at the nanometre scale (1nm = 10-9m, a billionth of a metre) is becoming routine. Scanning-probe microscopes now allow us to image and move single atoms on a surface. In the life sciences, molecular processes within cells are being elucidated, microelectronics are being reduced to below 100nm, and the first cosmetics containing nanoparticles are already on the Expecting huge markets in the future, both governments and large and small enterprises have greatly increased their NT research and development (R&D). In 2003, government spending alone represents $650–800 million in each of Western Europe, Japan, the USA and the rest of the industrialized countries (Roco, 2003). NT is predicted to produce revolutionary changes, bringing far-reaching consequences in many areas. Expected benefits include stronger, lighter and smart materials, market. Increasingly powerful computers allow ever better modelling of matter at the atomic and molecular scale. computers that are smaller, consume less power and are far more powerful, diagnostics and therapy at the singlecell level, reduction of resource use and pollution, and miniaturized, highly automated space systems (see, for example, Roco & Bainbridge, 2001: 3–12). Some visions of NT reach farther: to artificial intelligence of human capability and beyond; robotics from nano to macro scale; nanodevices within the human body that eradicate illness and ageing or interface with the brain; and universal molecular assemblers capable of self-replication, leading to superautomated production.2 Whether such visions can following the precautionary principle, one should take these possibilities seriously as long as they have not been demonstrated to be impossible for fundamental or technical reasons. Some were discussed at a recent workshop sponsored by the US government be realized has been disputed, particularly with regard to the assembler concept.3 However, on improving human performance through the convergence of nano, bio, information and cognitive science and technology (NBIC) – for example, nanoimplant devices, slowing down or reversing ageing, direct brain–machine interfaces and ‘artificial people’.4 Yet, while opening up fundamentally new NT also poses grave risks, among them environmental pollution, increased inequality , invasion of privacy, displacement of human workers and physical harm. Molecular NT would increase the possibilities, risks even further – as consequences of automatic production, or through accidents or malevolent use of self-replicating systems, for example.5 Debate on the general risks posed by NT has already begun. The US National Nanotechnology Initiative/National Science Foundation and the European Commission have explicitly recognized the need to investigate the societal implications of NT (Roco & Bainbridge, 2001; Roco & Tomellini, 2002). However, there is a paucity of ethical, legal and social research (Mnyusiwalla, Daar & Singer, 2003). This is even more the case regarding risks from military uses of NT. The aim of this article is to raise awareness of the dangers connected with military NT activities and to offer some preliminary recommendations.6 After a brief overview of the literature, the article presents a summary of current military R&D on NT in the USA. It then discusses potential military uses of NT before turning, in the subsequent section, to the question of preventive arms control, which leads to a concluding discussion and recommendations. Aspects of molecular NT are discussed in separate paragraphs. Previous Writing on Military NT Up until now, there has been practically no scholarly research on military NT. The topic has been discussed mainly in government papers, conferences, military journals and popular media. Seen from a narrow national-security standpoint, NT provides grand new options for the military. For the year 2030 or after, the UK Ministry of Defence foresees nano-solar cells and nanorobots designed for a range of purposes – including medical robots used internally in humans and microplatforms for reconnaissance (UK Ministry of Defence, 2001). The US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has referred to the possibility of information dominance through nanoelectronics; virtual reality systems for training; automation and robotics to offset reductions in manpower, reduce risks to troops and improve vehicle performance; higher-performance platforms with diminished failure rates and lower costs; improvements in chemical/biological/nuclear sensing and casualty care; improvements in systems for nonproliferation monitoring; and nano-/micromechanical devices for control of nuclear weapons (Roco & Bainbridge, 2001: 10–11). The national-security panel of the US NBIC workshop stated that in ‘deterrence, intelligence gathering, and lethal combat . . . it is essential to be technologically as far ahead of potential opponents as possible’ (Asher et al., 2002). Others have looked with a wider angle and have hinted at potential harmful uses of nanoweapons or the potential for controlled distribution of biological and nerve agents (ESANT, 1999; Meyer, 2001; Smith, 2001). Questions have been posed as to killing by robots (Metz, 2000; Crow & Sarewitz, 2001).7 Some authors acknowledge that national security will have to be sought in a context of global security (Yonas & Picraux, 2001; Petersen & Egan, 2002). Aside from such hints, discussions of strategy and security have not yet taken up NT in a systematic fashion. Dangers from military uses of molecular NT were already under discussion when the vision was first described to the general public (Drexler, 1986: 171–202). Destabilizing effects and arms races arising in particular from exponentially growing autonomous production were considered by Gubrud (1997). Joy’s (2000) warnings about genetics, NT and robotics have become widely known, and have evoked much critical comment. However, this has been mainly directed at general aspects rather than the dangers posed by military/terrorist uses (e.g. Brown & Duguid, 2001; Tolles, 2001; Smith, 2001). Moreover, the little arms-control discussion that exists has mostly addressed molecular NT . Drexler (1986: 171–202) argued in general terms for international agreements, but finally recommended ‘active shields’: nanomachines that, like the white blood cells of the human immune system, would ‘fight dangerous replicators of all sorts’. However, the feasibility of such shields seems even more unclear than that of self-replicating systems themselves. Gubrud (1997) stated that not producing weaponry en masse would be verifiable, calling for a space weapons ban and recommending a single The Foresight Guidelines (Foresight Institute, 2000), suggesting rules to prevent runaway replication, mention the risk of military abuse, but explicitly reject limitations by treaty because ‘a 99.99% effective ban would result in development and deployment by the 0.01% that evaded and ignored the ban’. Truly 100% verifiability can of course never be achieved, but a strong verification regime could restrain the technological development of leading states that might otherwise be caught in an accelerating arms race. In order to prevent NT-enabled mass destruction, Howard (2002) has presented two alternative global security regime. approaches: reserving ‘inner (atomic and molecular) space’ for peaceful exploitation, or preserving it as a ‘sanctuary’, forbidding nanotechnological While other countries are certainly active in military R&D of NT, there can be little doubt that the USA is spending far more than any other country , and maybe more than the rest of the world combined.9 Military R&D in the USA is much more transparent – not only in exploration and engineering completely.8 comparison to , for example, Russia or China , but also relative to countries such as the UK, France or Germany . Because US military NT activities provide an important precedent , they will be briefly described here. And, independently that Transparency will be critical to build confidence and avert miscalc Altmann 2k4 (Jurgen, Phd. physics doctoral dissertation on laser radar (University of Hamburg, Germany, since 1985 he has studied scientifictechnical problems of disarmament, first concerning high-energy laser weapons, founded the Bochum Verification Project (RuhrUniversity Bochum, Germany) that does research into the potential of automatic sensor systems for co-operative verification of disarmament and peace agreements. In recent years, he has studied military uses of, first, microsystems technologies and then nanotechnology, with a view towards preventive arms control (both at University of Dortmund, Germany). University of Dortmund). cofounder of the German Research Association Science, Disarmament and International Security FONAS, and currently is a deputy speaker of the Committee Physics and Disarmament of the German Physical Society, military uses of nanotechnology: perspectives and concerns, security dialogue, vol 35, pg online @ http://scx.sagepub.com/content/34/1/115.full.pdf+html ) The potential for mistrust is expected to be particularly high in areas where revolutionary changes are foreseen and the speed of those changes can change rapidly. Thus, transparency about national NT initiatives is of immense value and can significantly contribute to building confidence . Formally agreed confidence- and security-building measures about NT R&D might range from information exchanges on projects and budgets to direct cooperation, including exchanges of scientists and engineers. Such informal and formal measures should be striven for on many levels. However, it is doubtful whether they would suffice without legally binding agreement with stringent verification covering military NT R&D. And, the plan is a long-term engagement strategy that provides a platform for S&T leadership and U.S. Science Diplomacy Dolan 2k12 (Bridget M. Dolan, “Science and Technology Agreements as Tools for Science Diplomacy: A U.S. Case Study,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 4 (December 2012), pg online @ http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_and_technology_agreements_as_tools _for_science_diplomacy_science__diplomacy.pdf //um-ef) As this paper has elaborated, U.S. decisions to enter into S&T agreements are often motivated by the desire to transform a diplomatic relationship, promote public diplomacy, enhance a diplomatic visit, and/or advance U.S. national security. An S&T agreement can be a limited one-time deliverable or it can be a launching pad for extensive engagement . While the discussions above have focused on drivers for S&T agreements from the U.S. perspective, for these agreements to be effective tools of science diplomacy, implementation matters. the number of S&T agreements involving the United States has doubled. At the same time In the last decade, allocation of U.S. federal resources to designated international programs that support engagement in science and technology has not kept pace .11 Some science diplomacy practitioners and academics in the U nited S tates and abroad are concerned that an S&T agreement with the U nited S tates, while once considered an important tool, is no longer taken seriously .12 As these types of formal intergovernmental agreements continue to expand, however , the long-term benefit to official and nongovernmental relations between countries depends upon the ability to foster substantial scientific cooperation . It is essential that these agreements and science diplomacy more generally—while cognizant of the realities of limited resources— are ambitious enough to foster meaningful international partnerships . And, that solves every disad impact Fedoroff 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, administrator of USAID, science and technology advisor to the Secretary of State and US Department of State (Nina, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG110hhrg41470.htm)//RH The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of “soft power” – part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal – and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary’s transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement. Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly transnational and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. S cience and t echnology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50% of physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country . They also contribute to U.S. s cientific and t echnologic development: According to the National Science Board’s 2008 and in their home countries Science and Engineering Indicators, 47% of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science – particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology – are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States – representing 70% of the world’s current population.. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world’s two nuclear powers – the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among them the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for US science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the w eapons’ of m ass d estruction and prevent what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’. Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability. directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the Topicality Stuff Topicality EE = Aid Financial aid is EE Derrick 98 (Robert, Lieutenant Colonel US Army, “ENGAGEMENT: THE NATIONS PREMIER GRAND STRATEGY, WHO'S IN CHARGE?,” 1998, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695) Economic engagement covers a wide range of programs. Financial incentives are an effective engagement tool since countries usually interact with the US when money is involved . Whether it is obtaining funding for a national program; acquiring materiel , food or medicine; or maintaining Most Favored Nation 12Status, financial aide has always been a preferred way for the US to affect the behavior of others. Diplomatic engagement ranges from recognition of sovereign states and foreign governments, to presidential visits, to all aspects of the embassy itself. The mere existence of an embassy is an engagement tool. Through official diplomatic ceremonies, informal meetings, and embassy employees living among the locals, the Department of State's presence is engagement in and of itself. Similarly, "...overseas...forces embody global military engagement. They serve as role models for militaries in emerging democracies; contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and flexibility that protects US interests; and are crucial to continued democratic and economic development."14 In addition to our presence overseas, our military engagement consists of a variety of military to military and political to military events. U.S. and host nation defense forces conduct combined exercises to improve cooperation and strengthen ties. Much of the peacetime efforts of the DOS and DOD are engagement. This is in the form of forward presence, regional exercises, and infrastructure construction projects. The engagement tools of three of our five instruments of our National Power: Military, Economic and Political, (Geographical and National Will being the other two), listed below in Figure 3, are a few examples of how the US uses these powers to stay engaged. Military Diplomatic Economic CJCS Exercises State Recognition Agcy for Intl Devi Depl for Trng (DFT) Presidential Visits Econ Spt Fund (ESF) Intl Mil Ed & Tr (IMET) Demarshe Fgn Mil Sales (FMS) Counterdrug Spt (CD) Treaties & Health Aid Mobile Tr Teams (MTT) Agreements Most limiting interpretation still includes foreign aid and grants Resnick 2k1 (Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS, “Defining Engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b 4-ade2-4052-91147d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl 2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301) DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENT In order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic, military, A REFINED economic, cultural). The following is a brief list of the specific forms that such contacts might include: DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS •Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic relations •Promotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes •Summit meetings and other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials of sender state to target state and vice-versa MILITARY CONTACTS •Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state and vice-versa •Arms transfers •Military aid and cooperation •Military exchange and training programs •Confidence and security-building measures •Intelligence sharing ECONOMIC CONTACTS •Trade agreements and promotion •Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of loans and/or grants academic exchanges(n25) CULTURAL CONTACTS •Cultural treaties •Inauguration of travel and tourism links •Sport, artistic and And, EE is more than just trade – includes Aid Milner and Tingley 2k11 [1/1/11, Helen V. Milner is the B.C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Dustin H. Tingley is an Associate Professor of Government at Harvard University. He received a PhD in Politics from Princeton in 2010 and BA from the University of Rochester in 2001.“Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy,” http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley%20(2011)%20Who%20Supports%20Global %20Economic%20Engagement.pdf] We find strong support for political economy ~Stolper-Samuelson! theories in both trade and aid policy + A central core of support for international engagement in trade and aid lies in the constituencies that gain economically from trade and aid+ 26 Surprisingly, political economy preferences affect legislative voting in aid as much as they do in trade and in the same way+ This lends support to the idea of a single coalition supporting international economic engagement and to the claim of foreign policy substitutability+ Differences do exist, however, in the domestic bases of support for trade and aid policies+ First, foreign policy pressures as reflected through the president’s endorsement of foreign policy legislation are far more apparent in congressional voting on trade than in aid+ Second, liberals and left-leaning constituencies are more favorable to aid than trade , while conservative legislators prefer trade to aid+ This ideological divide looms larger in aid than trade+ These differences have implications for the theory of foreign policy substitutability and claims about the internationalist coalition+ Our research thus shows the need to incorporate both political economy models and foreign policy theories to understand American foreign policy Topicality – Expertise & Know How And, expertise and know-how are part of assistance programs Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4 (Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef) Most U.S. assistance is now provided as a grant (gift) rather than a loan (see the next question for further But the forms a grant may take on its way to the recipient country are diverse Cash transfers. What are the different forms in which assistance is provided? discussion). . Although it is the exception rather than the rule, some countries receive aid in the form of a cash grant to the government. Dollars provided in this way support a government’s balance-of-payments situation, enabling it to purchase more U.S. goods, service its debt, or devote more domestic revenues to developmental or other purposes. Cash transfers have been made as a reward to countries that have supported the United States in its war on terrorism (Turkey and Jordan in FY2004), to provide political and strategic support (both Egypt and Israel annually since 1979), and in exchange for undertaking difficult political and economic reforms (multiple African countries Commodity import programs (CIP). The Commodity Import Program managed by USAID allows indigenous private sector business in a foreign country to gain access to U.S. dollars in order to import eligible American goods . In exchange for since the 1980s, including Ghana, Mozambique, and Zambia in FY2004). Of FY2004 appropriations, about $855 million will be provided as cash transfers.CRS-24 the dollars, local currency paid by these businesses goes to a host government account and is then programmed for development purposes by both the host country and the United States. The program, used widely in the Equipment and commodities. Assistance may be provided in the form of food commodities, weapons systems, or equipment such as generators or computers . Food aid may be past, is currently administered solely in Egypt and valued at $200 million in FY2004. provided directly to meet humanitarian needs or to encourage attendance at a maternal/child health care program. Weapons supplied under the military assistance program may include training in their use. Equipment and commodities provided under development assistance are usually integrated with other forms of aid to meet objectives in a particular social or economic sector. For instance, textbooks have been provided in both Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a broader effort to reform the educational sector and train teachers. Computers may be offered in conjunction with training and expertise to fledgling microcredit institutions. Training. Transfer of know-how is a significant part of most assistance programs . The International Military and Educational Training Program (IMET) provides training to officers of the military forces of allied and friendly nations. Tens of thousands of citizens of aid recipient countries receive short-term technical training or longer term degree training annually under USAID’s participant training program. More than one-third of Peace Corps volunteers are English, math, and science teachers. Other programs provide law enforcement personnel with antinarcotics or anti-terrorism training. Expertise . Many assistance programs provide expert advice to government and private sector organizations. The Treasury Department, USAID, and U.S.- funded multilateral banks all place specialists in host government ministries to make recommendations on policy reforms in a wide variety of sectors. USAID has often placed experts in private sector business and civic organizations to help strengthen them in their formative years or while indigenous staff are being trained . While most of these experts are U.S. nationals, in Russia, USAID has funded the development of locally-staffed political and economic think tanks to offer policy options to that government. Small grants. USAID, the Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation often provide aid in the form of grants that may then be used by U.S. or indigenous organizations to further their varied developmental purposes. For instance, grants are sometimes provided to microcredit organizations which in turn provide loans to microentrepreneurs. Through the USAID-funded Eurasia Foundation, grants are provided to help strengthen the role of former Soviet Union non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in democratization and private enterprise development. Topicality – Gov-Gov And, the plan is Government-to-Government and Miotke 2k8 (Jeff Miotke Deputy Assistant Secretary, Science, Space, and Health U.S. Department of State, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/8, “International Science And Technology Cooperation,” pg lexis//um-ef) The role of the DOS in international S&T collaboration is to advance the objectives of the USG, the academic community, and U.S. commercial interests. The State Department's power rests in its ability to lay the appropriate ground rules for engagement at the government-to-government and international level, to serve as a catalyst, and to use its convening authority effectively. In its role as "chair" for USG international science engagement, OES convenes USG interagency working groups on S&T cooperation with specific countries. These groups are composed of representatives from over 20 USG agencies that have on-going, past or planned activities in those countries. Most interagency meetings are discretionary and called when S&T policy coordination is necessary. There are several every week over the course of the year. And, USAID programs are administered Gov-Gov Ernst and Young Global 2k12 (“USAID improves government transactions,” pg online @ http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Industries/Government---Public-Sector/Dynamics---May2012---USAID-improves-government-transactions //um-ef) As USAID undergoes reforms, senior officials David Ostermeyer and Thomas Briggs, talk about their priorities for the future of the US agency deploying international assistance . Since its creation in 1961, USAID has been the principal US agency deploying assistance to countries that are recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty and engaging in democratic reforms. Now, the agency is embarking on an extensive internal reform program that aims to change the way it does its business. The reforms, entitled USAID FORWARD, emphasize new partnerships, greater innovation and a stronger focus on results. “What we’re trying to do is to get back to government-to-government transactions because we think that it’s the best way to manage a sustainable development program, and enable us to walk away from a program,” says the agency’s Chief Financial Officer, David Ostermeyer. Topicality – Gov-Gov Plan is direct gov to gov interaction (only if NSF is the acting body in the USFG) Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH NSF leadership also represents the U.S. government on the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research, and through multiple roles in the activities of OECD's Global Science Forum. For example, NSF has recently been involved in hosting workshops on the science of science policy and biocomplexity, and the agency plays a major role in the coordination of the U.S. role in large facilities. NSF also plays significant roles in the consultative meetings of the Antarctic Treaty, in the scientific activities of other United Nations specialized agencies, such as the World Meteorological Organization, and in the activities of the Arctic Council, where we represent the scientific NSF leadership interacts directly with heads of state, ministers, and other principals to discuss forming new multilateral and bilateral agreements, or to alter or extend already existing agreements. Such leadership roles play a critical role in keeping the Nation proactively involved in the interest of all the Arctic nations. Through these activities, international S&T arena. Topicality – Assistance Science cooperation includes engagement through assistance Miotke 2k8 (Jeff Miotke Deputy Assistant Secretary, Science, Space, and Health U.S. Department of State, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/8, “International Science And Technology Cooperation,” pg lexis//um-ef) We are proud of the work we are doing to strengthen our S&T ties with other nations. Nonetheless, there is a lot more that could be done to further harness the soft power of S&T. Last month, the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy recommended that the DOS "expand its investment in Science, Engineering, and Technology expertise, presence, and global engagement. This includes expanding the Department's engagement in global science , engineering, and technology networks through exchanges, assistance , and joint research activities addressing key issues." I look forward to hearing from the Committee how we might work together to broaden our international cooperation on science and technology. And, the government measures Economic Engagement to developing countries by totaling Development Aid – the plan is the ONLY mechanism that is topical Dr. Adelman 2k5 (Carol C. Adelman, Dr. P.H., Director, Center for Science in Public Policy Jeremiah Norris, Senior Fellow Jean Weicher, Research Associate, “America’s Total Economic Engagement with the Developing World: Rethinking the Uses and Nature of Foreign Aid. The Hudson Institute) America’s Total Economic Engagement with the Developing World : Rethinking the Uses and Nature of Foreign Aid Foreign aid is back on the front burner of U.S. foreign policy. After World War II U.S. government dollars helped rebuild Europe and Asia and contain Soviet influence. Next, after the collapse of communism, aid helped newly democratic states recover from the miseries of central planning. In his first term, President Bush increased the U.S. Government aid budget by 50 percent, the largest increase since the Marshall Plan in 1948. Moreover, the way aid is distributed has been reinvented by the Bush administration to promote effective giving through the new Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).1 U.S. aid, at $16.3 billion per year in 2003, now dwarfs other developed countries, with Japan coming in a distant second at $8.8 billion. Despite this U.S. Government generosity and creative thinking about foreign aid, claims that America is “stingy” still abound. Economist Jeffrey Sachs, joined by a chorus that includes the New York Times editorial page, European governments and the UN, all believe that U.S. Government aid is inadequate. By doubling foreign aid to Africa in particular, as Sachs and the report on Africa commissioned by British Prime Minister Tony Blair recommend, donor countries, it is claimed, will finally be able to lift Africa out of its downward economic spiral. The criticism of American generosity comes from the much-quoted statistic that U.S. Government foreign aid ranks last among developed countries as a percentage of gross national income (GNI). This annoys Americans as we tend to think of ourselves as a generous people. We invest the most overseas, provide the most militarily for global disasters and security, produce the bulk of the world’s research and development for better food and medicines, and provide preferential trade agreements that support imports from developing countries. So, why should America, the richest nation in the world, not be more caring with its government foreign aid? The simple answer is: We are. The standard measure of foreign aid used to compare us to other donors, produced by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), is incomplete and misleading. It excludes America’s private international assistance. Conservative estimates indicate private international assistance, which is growing significantly every year, is over three and one-half times greater than U.S. government aid. Americans help people abroad the same way they help people at home — through private foundations, corporate giving, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations, and money sent back home to needy relatives. In 2003 this private philanthropy came to at least $62.1 billion compared to $16.3 billion of U.S. Government aid, or what is called Official Development Assistance (ODA). This White Paper updates the private international giving numbers that were produced by the Hudson Institute for the U.S. Agency for International Development report, Foreign Aid in the National Interest, for 2000.2 The new numbers for 2003, the last year for which data are available, are significantly higher than 2000 and reflect a continued growth in private giving as well as increased interest and attention to better measurement of U.S. global philanthropy. For its part, the Hudson Institute is developing a new Index of Global Philanthropy that will document U.S. private giving and begin collecting these numbers from European and other donor countries. U.S. Government and Private International Assistance to Developing Countries Based on new research and new data sources, the Hudson Institute has developed a considerably higher figure for 2003 U.S. private international assistance than the year 2000. The following table, using the latest official government figures as well, shows total U.S. economic engagement with developing countries . This engagement includes our government foreign aid or ODA , our private assistance or philanthropy, and our private capital flows or private investment overseas. The table illustrates the small role that ODA plays in America’s economic engagement with the developing world. Over 85 percent of that engagement is through the private sector, in either philanthropy or private investment. Presenting this full picture, not just a limited government foreign aid number, is a more accurate way of measuring American generosity and impact in the world than the current system developed under the OECD. Estimated U.S. Total Economic Engagement with Developing Countries in 2003 $US Billions % of Total U.S. Official Development Assistance 16.3 13 U.S. Other Country Assistance 1.5 1 U.S. Private Assistance 62.1 47 Foundations 3.3 Corporations 2.7 Non Profits and Volunteerism 6.2 Universities & Colleges 2.3 Religious Organizations 7.5 Individual Remittances 40.1 U.S. Private Capital Flows 51.0 39 U.S. Total Economic Engagement 130.9 100 U.S. Official Development Assistance This number of $16.3 billion represents what the OECD allows the U.S. Government to count as Official Development Assistance (ODA). This is the so called “donor performance” number that is compared to other countries. It includes the budget of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Peace Corps, contributions to the World Bank and other multilateral agencies, some State Department refugee and humanitarian programs and some Department of Defense humanitarian functions. Not allowed, and thus not counted in this number, are significant DOD peacekeeping and security efforts. Topicality – On-Going S&T Cooperation agreements are on-going – not just a single action Dolan 2k12 (Bridget M. Dolan, “Science and Technology Agreements as Tools for Science Diplomacy: A U.S. Case Study,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 4 (December 2012), pg online @ http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_and_technology_agreements_as_tools _for_science_diplomacy_science__diplomacy.pdf //um-ef) As this paper has elaborated, U.S. decisions to enter into S&T agreements are often motivated by the desire to transform a diplomatic relationship, promote public diplomacy, enhance a diplomatic visit, and/or advance U.S. national security. An S&T agreement can be a limited one-time deliverable or it can be a launching pad for extensive engagement . While the discussions above have focused on drivers for S&T agreements from the U.S. perspective, for these agreements to be effective tools of science diplomacy, implementation matters. In the last decade, the number of S&T agreements involving the United States has doubled. At the same time allocation of U.S. federal resources to designated international programs that support engagement in science and technology has not kept pace.11 Some science diplomacy practitioners and academics in the United States and abroad are concerned that an S&T agreement with the United States, while once considered an important tool, is no longer taken seriously.12 As these types of formal intergovernmental agreements continue to expand, however, the long-term benefit to official and nongovernmental relations between countries depends upon the ability to foster substantial scientific cooperation. It is essential that these agreements and science diplomacy more generally—while cognizant of the realities of limited resources—are ambitious enough to foster meaningful international partnerships. Disad Answers Dip Cap D.A. S&T Leadership Solves S&T Leadership Solves the internals to your disad – makes U.S. diplomacy more effective Committee on Science and Technology 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress (“International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH Science and technology were closely tied to American diplomacy in the early years after the founding of the United States. In fact, the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, was also designated the administrator of the Nation's first patent law, and the first efforts to establish a bureau of weights and measures were also associated with the Department of State. By the 1830's, this close relationship between diplomats and scientists seems to have diminished. It was not until World War II that science and technology (S&T) once again began to play a prominent role in the State Department. Nevertheless, the U.S. continued to engage in international science and technology cooperation for other purposes. For example, the first International Polar Year, a coordinated international effort to collect and analyze data about the polar number of reasons why the United States has and will continue to engage in international science and technology (S&T) cooperation, including: to strengthen U.S. science by providing our own scientists access to the best scientists and research sites around the world; to enable construction of and participation in prohibitively expensive world-class research facilities (either on U.S. soil or foreign sites) by partnering with foreign countries to leverage their funds and scientific talent; to address U.S. interests in global matters, such as non-proliferation, water resources, climate change and infectious diseases, in part by ensuring that foreign and international (e.g., U.N.) decision-makers have access to the best science; to help build technological capacity and address health and resource crises in other countries in order to help maintain U.S. national security and economic interests; and to help build more positive relationships with other countries - what is often called ``science diplomacy.'' This is certainly not an exhaustive list nor the only way to break down the rationale for engaging in international S&T cooperation. One former State Department official prefers the following categories: science for science's sake; science for the decision-maker; science for development; and science for diplomacy. The witnesses for this hearing are likely to provide their own regions, occurred in 1882-83. We are currently in the middle of the third International Polar Year. There are a lists of reasons why the Federal Government broadly, or their respective agencies specifically, engage in S&T cooperation. In addition to every federal agency that either does its own research or funds academic research (or in most cases, both) supports international S&T cooperation, the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), including Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Commerce (includes NIST and NOAA), and Health and Human Services (includes NIH) as well as NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the President on matters of science and technology as they relate to international issues, and provides intellectual support to the Department of State and USAID on S&T matters. State and USAID also turn to NSF and the mission agencies for intellectual input on S&Trelated issues that fall within those agencies' areas of expertise, such as health, energy or water. The mission agencies, on the other hand, turn to the Department of State for assistance in negotiating formal agreements with other nations. Politics Regulations Unpopular Passing regulations faces a tough debate – solvency take-out Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP Moreover, even if stricter laws and regulations are ultimately justified, there are good reasons to think that they cannot be enacted anyway, or at least face stiff resistance with lawmakers and regulatory agencies, particularly in the US. Clarence Davies, the author of the Woodrow admits that: “In the U.S. political system, it has never been easy to pass new laws regulating commercial products. In the current political climate, it is close to impossible” [40]. Changing regulatory policy is likewise a formidable challenge. That is to say, the US legislative and regulatory systems are notorious for being complicated and mired in debate, so barring an urgent need – which many believe has not yet been established for nanomaterials – it does not seem optimistic to think that new laws or stronger regulations can be enacted in the near future, even if needed. Wilson International Center report that sparked today’s stricter-law debate, even But perhaps we can suggest a simpler solution here. Nano Unpop: Science Fiction Nanotech is unpopular – resistance to change in congress, dismissed as science fiction Treder 07 – Executive Director for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (Mike, “Congress and the Singularity”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 3/31/2007, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html)//BD "Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think" is the title of a report [PDF] published this month by Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress. The paper, authored by Dr. Joseph Kennedy, Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, says:¶ Enhanced abilities to understand and manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic levels promise a wave of significant new technologies over the next five decades. Dramatic breakthroughs will occur in diverse areas such as medicine, communications, computing, energy, and robotics. These changes will generate large amounts of wealth and force wrenching changes in existing markets and institutions.¶ And that's just the beginning of a surprisingly stark assessment of nanotechnology's transformative potential. The first section opens with this paragraph:¶ In 1970 Alvin Toffler, noted technologist and futurist, argued that the acceleration of technological and social change was likely to challenge the capacity of both individuals and institutions to understand and to adapt to it. Although the world has changed a great deal since then, few would argue that the pace of change has had the discontinuous effects that Toffler predicted. However, rapid advances in a number of fields, collectively known as nanotechnology, make it possible that Mr. Toffler’s future has merely been delayed. In fact, some futurists now talk about an unspecified date sometime around the middle of this century when, because of the accelerating pace of technology, life will be radically different than at any prior time.¶ Yes, it is "The Singularity" that's being alluded to there. In a later section, the report describes it this way:¶ Every exponential curve eventually reaches a point where the growth rate becomes almost infinite. This point is often called the Singularity. If technology continues to advance at exponential rates, what happens after 2020? Technology is likely to continue, but at this stage some observers forecast a period at which scientific advances aggressively assume their own momentum and accelerate at unprecedented levels, enabling products that today seem like science fiction. Beyond the Singularity, human society is incomparably different from what it is today. Several assumptions seem to drive predictions of a Singularity. The first is that continued material demands and competitive pressures will continue to drive technology forward. Second, at some point artificial intelligence advances to a point where computers enhance and accelerate scientific discovery and technological change. In other words, intelligent machines start to produce discoveries that are too complex for humans. Finally, there is an assumption that solutions to most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved by technology, if not by us, then by the computers we eventually develop.¶ It is remarkable to find officials at this level of the U.S. government, or any large government, openly discussing dramatic possibilities that most often are dismissed as science fiction. However, the report does caution about making an uncritical assumption that suddenly "everything will change": ¶ Looking forward, science is likely to continue outrunning expectations, at least in the medium-term. Although science may advance rapidly, technology and daily life are likely to change at a much slower pace for several reasons. First, it takes time for scientific discoveries to become embedded into new products, especially when the market for those products is uncertain. Second, both individuals and institutions can exhibit a great deal of resistance to change. Because new technology often requires significant organizational change and cost in order to have its full effect, this can delay the social impact of new discoveries. For example, computer technology did not have a noticeable effect on economic productivity until it became widely integrated into business offices and, ultimately, business processes. It took firms over a decade to go from replacing the typewriters in their office pools to rearranging their entire supply chains to take advantage of the Internet Nano Unpop: Controversy Nanotech is controversial – empirics prove Piper 13 – Freelance Journalist (Arthur, “The Big Risk of Small Particles: The Threats and Promise of Nanotechnology”, Risk Management Magazine, 4/9/2013, http://www.rmmagazine.com/2013/04/09/the-big-risk-ofsmall-particles-the-threats-and-promise-of-nanotechnology/)//BD “Until risk assessment for nanomaterials is validated and fit-for-purpose detection methods are developed, we do not support the commercial sale of nano-sunscreens,” said Georgia Miller, the author of the report.¶ There have been similar arguments about nanotechnology in other fields. Five years ago, it was nanosilver. In 2008, an alliance of health and environmental campaigners filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against manufacturers of nanosilver products. It argued that the substance, which is used in washing machines, among other things, could increase the toxicity of waterways.¶ Before that, it was carbon nanotubes, which are used in medical equipment, building materials, sporting goods and vehicles but may also have the potential to cause cancer. And in 2003, the U.S. Congress became embroiled in a bitter fight about the definition, uses and risks associated with such technologies. Everywhere it is found, this tiny technology seems to cause trouble. Nano Unpop: Morality Nanotech is unpopular in America – religious and moral views Science Daily 08 – Research article based on research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (“Religion Colors Americans’ Views of Nanotechnology”, Science Daily, 2/17/2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm)//BD Is nanotechnology morally acceptable? For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small .¶ 7¶ Addressing scientists Feb. 15, 2008 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.¶ "Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U.S. than in Europe," says Scheufele, an expert on public opinion and science and technology. ¶ Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market.¶ In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable .¶ In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental 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: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."¶ The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.¶ He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.¶ The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.¶ "They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."¶ The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.¶ The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.¶ Nano Popular: Various Nanotech is empirically popular – Clinton and Bush administration, war on terrorism, NSF, military projects prove Keiper 03 – Managing editor of the New Atlantis which is a journal of Science and Technology (Adam, “The Nanotech Revolution”, The New Atlantis, Summer 2003, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/thenanotechnology-revolution)//BD The Politics of Nanotech¶ So far, no nanotech businesses have adopted the Foresight Guidelines — after all, most firms are working on mainstream nanotech, not the riskier kind. Besides, nanotech companies have no motivation to regulate themselves, since it seems unlikely that they will be regulated by government any time soon. But this may change as the politics of nanotechnology begin to take shape.¶ Some agencies in the federal government have been involved in nanotechnology since at least the early 1980s, most notably the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. By 1997, the federal government was annually investing $116 million in nanotech; that figure had doubled by 1999. ¶ In 2000, the Clinton Administration pushed for more subsidies for nanotech and the creation of a National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) that would coordinate the nanotech work of six different agencies. President Clinton alluded to nanotechnology in that January’s State of the Union Address, when he spoke of “materials ten times stronger than steel at a fraction of the weight, and — this is unbelievable to me — molecular computers the size of a teardrop with the power of today’s fastest supercomputers.” His administration worked hard to sell the proposal to Congress; as one official from the Clinton White House told Scientific American, “You need to come up with new, exciting, cutting-edge, at-the-frontier things in order to convince the budget- and policy-making apparatus to give you more money.”¶ Congress couldn’t resist, and the NNI was approved with an initial budget of $422 million. President Bush, in the first year of his administration, asked for another hundred million dollars for nanotech, and added another handful of agencies to the NNI. Bush’s budget proposals for FY2003 and FY2004 further boosted the nanotech budget — despite the flagging economy and the war on terrorism. (In fact, some NNI proponents have used the war on terrorism to make the case for increasing nanotech funding; they say nanotech research can help build tools to detect weapons of mass destruction.)¶ Flush with nanotech cash, the National Science Foundation recently started a program to teach high school and elementary school students about nanotechnology, “with introduction to preliminary concepts as early as kindergarten,” according to the Christian Science Monitor. “Business, industry, and higher-education leaders agree, saying early education gives students a jump on a job market many expect to blossom in the future .”¶ Perhaps the most prominent federal entity under the NNI umbrella is the Department of Defense, which in May unveiled its new $50 million Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at M.I.T. The Institute, which treats soldiers as “integrated platform systems” rather than human beings, will bring together M.I.T. scientists, military officers, and researchers from private industry to develop lighter, stronger clothes and equipment for the Army. Some of the projects being suggested include an “exoskeleton” or “dynamic armor,” which could become hard or soft at a soldier’s command, and other clothes that could store energy — like the energy wasted in every footstep — and employ it later to give the soldier superhuman strength. All the technologies being developed at the Institute — like all other nanotech projects publicly acknowledged by the Defense Department — are essentially defensive, not offensive, in nature, so they are unlikely to incite opposition.¶ Nano Popular: No opp No opposition to Nanotech and plan is popular – Gingrich and NanoBusiness Alliance support Keiper 03 – Managing editor of the New Atlantis which is a journal of Science and Technology (Adam, “The Nanotech Revolution”, The New Atlantis, Summer 2003, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/thenanotechnology-revolution)//BD At the same time, because the benefits of nanotechnology are still largely uncertain, there is not yet a natural constituency for nanotech legislation — except for the nanotech companies themselves. They are represented by the New York-based NanoBusiness Alliance, a trade group founded in 2001 by F. Mark Modzelewski, who acts as the Alliance’s executive director. Modzelewski, who modeled his group after the Biotechnology Industry Organization, was a lowranking official in the Clinton Administration — which hasn’t stopped him from making Newt Gingrich, that starry-eyed technophile, the Alliance’s honorary chairman. Gingrich told the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report that he believes that “those countries that master the process of nanoscale manufacturing and engineering will have a huge job boom over the next twenty years, just like aviation and computing companies in the last forty years, and just as railroad, steam engine and textile companies were decisive in the nineteenth century.”¶ Since the politics of nanotechnology are still immature, there is no prominent opponent of nanotechnology in the nation’s capital or even a unifying rationale for such opposition. The most organized opposition to nanotechnology has come from the ETC Group, a liberal Canadian environmental outfit that has published a series of harshly critical reports on nanotechnology — some of them detailed and provocative. In late July, Greenpeace issued its first report on nanotechnology, with ambiguous conclusions. [Available in PDF here.] A few other environmentalist groups have spoken out against nanotechnology, but there hasn’t yet been any movement comparable to the massive international campaigns against genetically modified foods. It is safe to speculate that these leftist groups will in time coalesce into an anti-nanotech front, using the rhetoric of anti-corporatism and environmental extremism to make their case. They will likely be opposed by the techno-libertarian and patient advocacy groups who presently support human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, and by the mainstream political establishment, at both the national and state levels, which sees nanotech as a way to boost the economy. ¶ Nano Popular: Congres, Orgs Strong support for nanotech – organizations, congressional support, grand challenges Keiper 03 – Managing editor of the New Atlantis which is a journal of Science and Technology (Adam, “The Nanotech Revolution”, The New Atlantis, Summer 2003, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/thenanotechnology-revolution)//BD If still unformed, however, there is reason to believe that public debate about nanotech is about to take off — with two new nanotech organizations founded in just the past year. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, run by a social activist and a nanosystems theorist, has been cranking out publications since January. “What we want,” says Chris Phoenix, one of the Center’s founders, “is to see molecular nanotechnology policy developed and implemented with a care appropriate to its powerful and probably transformative nature.” And two Washingtonians — a futurist and an antitrust lawyer — are in the process of launching the Nanotechnology Policy Forum to improve the quality of public discourse about nanotech. They intend to host events every few months, and to stay scrupulously evenhanded: the advisory panel planned for the organization will include both friends and foes of nanotech — as well as present and former congressmen.¶ Congress also seems slightly more attuned to the need for debate about nanotechnology. Plans are afoot in both the House and the Senate to fund studies of the social, economic, and environmental implications of nanotechnology.¶ Also, legislation currently wending its way through Congress would establish “grand challenges” for nanotechnology: longterm objectives akin to President Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the Moon. [See S. 189 in the Senate, and H.R. 283 in the House.] While it isn’t at all clear at this stage that nanotechnology can capture the imagination of the public like the Moon missions did, there is one obvious goal that would make an excellent “grand challenge” — a goal presently overlooked in all the millions of federal dollars going to nanotech: the assembler breakthrough. And just as the Apollo missions to the Moon were preceded by missions with incremental goals (achieved by the Mercury and Gemini programs), an ambitious nanotechnology project aspiring to make the world’s first assembler could also set intermediate goals, like the creation of a basic nanoscale computer or a nanoscale robotic arm. But the National Nanotechnology Initiative is so focused on developing mainstream nanotech that Drexler’s nanotechnology has found neither a great advocate nor a great critic. ¶ The Challenge Ahead Nano Bipart Nanotech has bipartisan support – Empirical funding, support from congress and the president Sargent 08 - Specialist in Science and Technology Policy: Resources, Science, and Industry Division (John, “Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness: Issues and Options”, CRS Report for Congress, 3/15/2008, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34493.pdf)//BD The federal government has played a central role in catalyzing U.S. R&D efforts. In 2000, President Clinton launched the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the world’s first integrated national effort focused on nanotechnology. The NNI has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support from the executive branch, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Each year, the President has proposed increased funding for federal nanotechnology R&D, and each year Congress has provided additional funding. Since the inception of the NNI, Congress has appropriated a total of $8.4 billion for nanotechnology R&D intended to foster continued U.S. technological leadership and to support the technology’s development, with the long-term goals of: creating high-wage jobs, economic growth, and wealth creation; addressing critical national needs; renewing U.S. manufacturing leadership; and improving health, the environment, and the overall quality of life. USAID Unpop USAID links to politics – requires congressional earmarks for projects Committee for Science and Technology 06 – Committee on science and technology in Foreign Assistance in the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Developent, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs (The Fundamental Role of Science and Technology in International Development, pg31)//BD Within this myriad of expanding activities. USAID has unique and broad legislative authority for bilateral foreign assistance programs, but its role in carrying out this authority is increasingly determined by congressional earmarks and White House initiatives. As indicated in Table I-5. many of these special programs are based in large measure on S&T. Earmarks and initiatives will undoubtedly continue to play an important role in determining the priorities for USAID and, indeed, in sustaining important programs. For example, earmarks in human reproduction, child health. and population have helped to maintain a balance in the overall health portfolio increasingly focused on HIV/AIDS. Nevertheless. some earmarks may be low-payoff distractions. USAID should ensure that all earmarked programs are subjected to external evaluation. along with other USAID-supported programs. to assess whether they are contributing effectively to foreign assistance objectives. When the special interest programs prove not to be cost-effective or support only narrow and relatively insignificant objectives. the White House and Congress should be informed promptly (see Box l-12). Since S&T are integral components of many foreign assistance activities. consideration of USAID's efforts to draw on the nation`s S&T capabilities in carrying out its programs must begin with consideration of USAID's broader role in foreign assistance. To this end, the committee considered the three models set forth below that could define USAID's role during the next few years. particularly with regard to development assistance, The committee recognized that programs to provide humanitarian assistance. disaster relief. and reconstruction in war-torn regions might require somewhat different models that emphasize greater flexibility and more rapid deployment. S&T Bipart Science programs are bipartisan – Science, Space, and Technology committee, lack of budget cuts prove Jones 13 – Writer for the government divisions division for the American Institute of physics (Richard, “Controversy on House Committee”, American Institute of Physics, 5/2/13, http://www.aip.org/fyi/2013/080.html#)//BD The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has traditionally been known as one of the most bipartisan committees in the House. While there have been disagreements about budgets and policy – such as the 2010 reauthorization of the America COMPETES legislation – the committee has generally been able to separate itself from the atmosphere found in most committee rooms and on the House floor. Recent developments indicate a change in this approach.¶ An early indication occurred last summer when the full House considered the FY 2013 appropriations bill funding the National Science Foundation. Initial remarks from the chairmen and ranking members of the House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Science Committee reaffirmed the broad and bipartisan nature of congressional support for science. That was largely reaffirmed when the House voted against an amendment to cut the foundation’s budget by $1.2 billion. There was a definite shift when the House voted largely along party lines to eliminate funding for NSF’s Climate Change Education Program and NSF’s Political Science Program. In response, the American Institute of Physics and several of its Member Societies were among those signing a letter sent to the Senate opposing “legislative attempts to micromanage NSF and undermine the merit review process by singling out specific programs for elimination as recently occurred in the House.” Nano Lobbies Push Nanotech lobbies are pushing for the plan Hearst 08 – Newspaper corporation (“Nanotech Firms Lobby Congress”, Arkansas Online, 3/3/2008, http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/mar/03/nanotechfirms-lobby-congress-support/)//BD WASHINGTON — Roughly two dozen nanotechnology companies and other experts went to Capitol Hill last week to show off their wares and send Congress a message: Nanotechnology is about a whole lot more than computer chips.¶ Supporters of more federal aid for nanotechnology, the science and engineering of products on an extremely small scale, say this is the next industrial frontier. Scientists and entrepreneurs argue that the burgeoning industry needs more federal funding for the United States to stay ahead of global competitors. Counterplan Answers ***International CPs*** US Key US Key: Experience Regs US key – experience in regulation Holdren, Sunstein, and Siddiqui 11 [John Holdren is the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Cass Sunstein is the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Islam Siddiqui is the Chief Agricultural Negotiator and is an Office of United States Trade Representative. “Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials” June 9 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/nanotechnology-regulation-andoversight-principles.pdf] Building consumer trust and confidence in a sound regulatory regime is integral to fostering innovation and promoting the responsible development of nanotechnology applications. Federal agencies will strive to provide their stakeholders with clear information that delineates the specific risks identified and the context in which they arise. It is important that Federal agencies manage expectations realistically -- neither overselling nor underselling the potential benefits or risks. This framework is expected to evolve in response to the experiences of the Federal agencies and other stakeholders. As noted above, future scientific and other developments will almost certainly lead to refinements in agencies' approaches. Indeed, as experience with other technological innovations has shown, scientific progress and greater awareness of the effects of emerging technologies have enabled regulatory approaches to be modified to reflect a more complete understanding of the potential risks and benefits involved. A similar evolution is anticipated in the regulation and oversight of nanomaterials. Over time, modifications may need to be made through administrative or legislative actions. U.S. Key: Relationship/Expertise US key to reorient nanotech sector—Mexico’s key Foladori et al 07- Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS For the most part, there are two features that distinguish the nanotechnology initiatives¶ in Argentina and Brazil from the Mexican. On one hand, México is missing¶ a tangible plan for the development and research of nanotechnology. On the¶ other, the United States plays an important role in most of the cooperation agreements ¶ signed by México and in the creation of new positions inside Mexican high¶ technology industries. This last feature is, to some extent, logical since México¶ and the United States are neighbor countries and both are members of the North¶ American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). However, this relationship gives a¶ special character to the development of nanotechnology in México . U.S. Regs Modeled And, U.S. will be modeled – U.S. Regulations and Nano Development key Mentink, 2004 [S.A.M., Philips Research Eindhoven, “National Nanotechnology Initiative: From Vision to Commercialization,” June] The US wishes to take the lead in nanotech and define the rules of the game but many obstaeles exist. Small business funding is hard to come by. Venture capital money goes to scale up companies rather than start-ups. Most of the NNI money goes to universities and national labs that have only renamed their programs (not a lot of extra money). Education is as big a problem as anywhere. Not enough science teachers, students prefer a high salary after law school above the uncertainties of a science career. The US will remain a need for large influx of foreign scientists and students. But Japan, China and Korea and also Europe will be very competitive. A lot of the science programs overlap, investigate similar programs. The most innovative research takes place in the nanobiotechnology area (especially at MIT and Cornell). More incremental R&D such as sensor research is already providing spectacular results in many fields. Energy production, storage and distribution are perhaps the most important areas to get into. Until the energy problem is solved, efficiency is the word, directing us to fields as LED lighting and low-power electronics. System design, system in package and cooling in the package were also mentioned as important areas. Very significant up-tooling of the infrastructure is required and already taking place. Some call for an affordable SPM in every classroom. Because of the powerful public voices in the US, the regulations and rules for responsible development may be pioneered and/or dictated by the US. U.S. Regs k International Coop Federal regulations key to international cooperation Matsuura 6 (Jeffrey H. Matsuura, Assistant Professor and Director of the Program in Law & Technology at the University of Dayton Law School in Dayton, Ohio, “Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide,” July 2006, http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10160965, AC) Expanded international use of nanotechnology, and associated regulatory action at the national level in different jurisdictions, can also lead to multinational regulatory action. Existing international treaties may be modified to account for global nanotechnology activity. Also possible are new treaty initiatives directed specifically toward nanotechnology development and use. Multinational attention to nanotechnology is likely to focus initially on environmental, health, safety, and national security regulations. Part of the appeal of coordinated multinational regulatory¶ Regulatory action by multiple governments need not always be the source of international tension. By collaborating and coordinating with each other as they consider nanotechnology and its implications, nanotechnology regulation can become, at least in part, a foundation for international cooperation. By sharing information and communicating on objectives, governments can face the regulatory challenges posed by nanotechnology in a collaborative way. That collaboration may result in more effective regulation and may help to improve international relationships. In this way, nanotechnology oversight holds the potential to promote more comprehensive and effective cooperation between nations. We are seeing examples of such collaboration among governments on nanotechnology regulation in the European Community, for example. Nano Leadership US nanotech leadership declining – key to economy, global leadership, manufacturing, health care, energy, environment – now is key Vickers 11 – Journalist for the Medill News Service (Hannah, “Concerns raised over American competitiveness in nanotechnology”, Medill Washington, 7/14/11, http://medilldc.net/2011/07/concerns-raised-over-american-competitiveness-in-nanotechnology/)//BD WASHINGTON – While America has been at the forefront of nanotechnology for more than a decade, other countries are rapidly catching up and the U.S economy could suffer if America’s frontrunner status is not preserved, a top nanotechnology expert told Congress on Thursday. ¶ Testifying before a Senate science subcommittee, Chad Mirkin, director of the International Institute for Nanotechnology at Northwestern University, said the United States is positioned to make “extraordinary strides” in nanotechnology over the next decade , but cautioned that America is not alone. ¶ The committee is considering a bill to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative, created in 2000. The NNI program coordinates more than a dozen federal agencies involved in nanotechnology funding and research. ¶ Countries all of the world, including China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Germany, are building efforts to rival NNI, Mirkin warned ¶ “If the United States does not act now and aggressively pursue the development of nanoscience and nanotechnology, we will lose our position as the global leader in this transformative field,” he said. “Moreover, we will lose the opportunities it can afford us to build our economy and new manufacturing base.” ¶ Sen. John Rockefeller, Democratic chairman of the Commerce Committee, said he believes nanotechnology will play a key role in boosting the economy and creating jobs.¶ “There are significant economic and societal incentives to maintain our lead in this field,” Rockefeller said. “The global market for nanotechnology-related products was more than $200 billion in 2009, and projections suggesting that it will reach $1 trillion by 2015.” ¶ “It has the potential to transform almost every aspect of our lives by providing rapid routes to addressing some of the most pressing problems in health care, electronics, energy and the environment,” Mirkin said. Coop/Investment key 2AC Add-on Internal: Water/Disease The US should invest in nanotech for developing countries Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) Promote nanotechnology applications for developing countries. As the article by Peter Singer et al. in this issue points out, researchers at the University of Toronto have published a list of the 10 applications of nanotechnology with the most relevance to developing countries. Examples include inexpensive systems that purify, detoxify, and desalinate water more efficiently than conventional bacterial or viral filters; clean energy; and a “lab on a chip” for research on developing-country diseases. The United States should fund research collaborations between U.S. and developing-country researchers to explore these applications . Coop & Info-Share Key Cooperation key – environment, health, innovation, increase in trade, increase competitiveness White House 12 – Executive Office of the President of the United States (“United States – Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council Work Plan”, 2/28/2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/united-states-mexico-high-levelregulatory-cooperation-council-work-plan.pdf)//BD Why Should We Do This? 1. Ensuring that the United States and Mexico share information regarding each other’s respective regulatory approaches to nanotechnology applications and nanomaterials at an early stage will be critical in reducing risks to environmental and human health while fostering innovation 2. Considering a joint framework to align regulatory approaches will ensure consistency for consumers and industry within and between both countries; and 3. Consistency in a regulatory approach in this area will facilitate responsible manufacturing and trading of products between the two countries, and will foster the competitiveness of the industry. Collaboration Key Solves Resources Latin American collaboration key—overcomes resource hurdles Kay et al 09-School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Shapira- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester (Luciano, Philip, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America”, 02/11/2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/#__ffn_sectitle//VS) In seeking to develop nanotechnology in Latin America, both in terms of building research activities and in influencing pathways for innovation and utilization, the level and character of research collaboration is an important factor. Since research resources are limited in all Latin American countries, collaboration can be helpful in leveraging available expertise and facilities, including providing access to equipment and instruments for researchers that lack such equipment in their home labs. Even more significantly, given the convergent nature of nanotechnology, research collaboration can be fundamental to undertaking interdisciplinary research, accessing up new sources of knowledge, and identifying and acting upon significant research problems (Heinze and Bauer 2007; Heinze et al. 2008). Research collaborations may also speed the transfer of knowledge for the deployment of nanotechnology, for example through collaboration between leading researchers in global centers and researchers in developing countries or, within a country, by teaming between academic and corporate researchers. Solves Regulations (Brain Drain) US-Mexican collaboration is key—solves regulations and national projects Kay et al 09-School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Shapira- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester (Luciano, Philip, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America”, 02/11/2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/#__ffn_sectitle//VS) Mexico is second in Latin America by published nanotechnology articles (and also by population). In 2004, there were eleven nanotechnology research groups at three universities and two research institutes, working primarily in new materials development (Malsch 2004); in 2007, an external European mission identified more than a dozen institutions with active nanotechnology research programs, again with a strong presence in nanomaterials (NanoforumEULA 2007). A few companies are also commercializing nanotechnology in Mexico, although academic–industry relationships are reported as weak (Malsch 2004). An important aspect for Mexico is the link maintained with the US in terms of cooperation for high-technology development which, jointly with the geographic proximity to that country, are hoped to offer Mexico an advantage for future commercialization of nanotechnology compared with other countries of Latin America. There are already some initiatives for supplying the semiconductor and other high-tech industries. For example, the project for the Silicon Border Development Science Park started in 2006 with the goal of becoming the first hightech park in Latin America that is specialized at the nanoscale (Foladori and Zayago2007). However, Mexico does not have a national program for developing these technologies. Indeed, until 2005 there was no federal program financing, organizing, or regulating nanotechnology (Foladori2006). Additionally, Mexico consistently faces challenges of retaining its most highly talented researchers in the face of superior research conditions and salaries in the US. Coop Key/Modeling US-Latin American cooperation critical—sidesteps barriers to effective nanotech and leads to US modeling Kay et al 09-School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Shapira- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester (Luciano, Philip, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America”, 02/11/2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/#__ffn_sectitle//VS) The third strategy involves the development international research collaborations and alliances outside Latin America, particularly with leading international centers in the US, Europe, and other developed countries. Such linkages allow Latin American researchers opportunities both to tap into the frontiers of research and development and to catch-up with or replicate research done by technology leaders. At the same time, global collaborations may lead to technological developments that are more 3 with foreign rather than local interests, although in some cases developed countries maintain research programs which encourage their researchers to work with colleagues in developing countries on topics of particular relevance to the latter. Efforts toward international alliances are likely to be led by universities and research institutes (with perhaps the support of government departments, but not their management). Computer Crimes Nanotech will make new types of crime possible – federal government involvement key to solve Theodore and Kunz 5 (Louis Theodore, EngScD, a professor of chemical engineering for fifty years, Robert G. Kunz, environmental engineering manager at a major industrial gas and chemical company before retiring after twenty-six years. He also worked in the petroleum industry, on plant design/construction, and for a manufacturer of air pollution control catalyst. He is currently an independent environmental consultant. Dr. Kunz earned a BChE degree in chemical engineering from Manhattan College, a PhD in chemical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, an MS in environmental engineering from Newark College of Engineering, and an MBA from Temple University, April 22, 2005, “Nanotechnology: Environmental Implications and Solutions,” p. 10) Then there is the matter of the criminal use of nanotechnology. The past decade¶ has already seen the growth of a new area of crime: computer crime. For example, in¶ addition to conventional theft, law enforcement agencies must now become techno-¶ logically proficient to handle computer fraud, identity theft, theft of information, ¶ embezzlement, copyright violation, computer vandalism. and like activities, all¶ accomplished over the computer network under conditions such that not only is¶ the criminal hard to trace but even the crime may go undetected. The computer criminals are technologically very savvy and willing to exploit the potentials of any new¶ technology. About the only thing one can expect is that if nanotechnology provides¶ great new potentials, someone will use those potentials for criminal purposes. and¶ the laws will again be forced to play catch-up in response to the crimes, after the¶ harm has occurred.¶ These speculations presume the feasibility of such futuristic devices. And one¶ comes back to the original point that it is not known what will be feasible in 10¶ or 20 years. Not only with respect to nanotechnology but with respect to the convergence of nanotechnology with other technologies such as biotechnology, information technology, wireless technology, materials science, and quantum physics.¶ It would be prudent for those involved in nanotechnology and those involved in¶ law to interact constructively, and to share knowledge and expertise to avoid blindly¶ traveling along a road whose features and direction are yet unknown. As always. the¶ question is whether human beings will control technology for their own constructive¶ uses, and that depends upon whether people can control themselves. The alternative¶ is to be mastered by one’s own creations. Coop key Effectiveness International collaboration is key to nanotech effectiveness Duda 12 Professor at Izmir University of Economics, Department of Business Administration (Neslihan Aydogan, “Making It to the Forefront: Nanotechnology‚ÄîA Developing Country Perspective”, 5/17/2012, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.co m%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9781461415442-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1332208p174193175&ei=ABLwUfibMMeoqgHamIGQDA&usg=AFQjCNGa_EDrKNVQWILghrsEKPZgTDtUg&sig2=CNqM30E8xw2xfdwRxZ6RGQ&bvm=bv.49641647,d.aWM&cad=rja//VS) The interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology is a given, i.e., the principles of this¶ technology finds its application in a variety of different sectors. Hence, its success¶ in terms of enabling economic growth is largely dependent as to whether such collaboration¶ at the research and development stages is promoted effectively . In fact,¶ the celebrated multiplier effect of this technology requires collaboration without¶ which the impact of nanotechnology would stand as irrelevant to the economic environment¶ it is brought in .¶ There are a variety of different approaches to cultivate this industry across different¶ countries. In the first section we first list the possible implications of nanotechnology¶ on several industries such as the agriculture and the food industry, the water management¶ industry, energy industry, solar energy industry, medicine and healthcare¶ industries, textiles, chemicals, space, construction, electronics, automobiles, computers,¶ and materials industries. In the second and third sections, respectively, we ¶ exemplify as to what type of policies can help this diffusion and the resulting multiplier¶ policy needs to advance this¶ technology so that its applications fulfill their potential. effect. In the third section, we talk about the Coop key Diffusion Latin America key—overcomes cost and R&D hurdles Duda 12 Professor at Izmir University of Economics, Department of Business Administration (Neslihan Aydogan, “Making It to the Forefront: Nanotechnology‚ÄîA Developing Country Perspective”, 5/17/2012, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0C DIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdoc ument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9781461415442-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D00-45-1332208p174193175&ei=ABLwUfibMMeoqgHamIGQDA&usg=AFQjCNGa_EDrKNVQWI LghrsEKPZgTDtUg&sig2=CNqM30E8xw2xfdwRxZ6RGQ&bvm=bv.49641647,d.aWM& cad=rja//VS) In Table 2.1 we can view the countries classified as developing, transitional, and ¶ developed that are involved in the nanotechnology activities.¶ There is an obvious correlation between the income levels, low levels of R&D¶ and health-care spending by governments, and efforts to invest in nanotechnology.¶ Of course as Mac Lurcan ( 2005 ) adds the weak infrastructure, low skill levels, and¶ bad policies along with the costs that are required to be incurred, weak intellectual ¶ property rights, inadequate education at the academic and the public level, the brain ¶ drain problem along with the trade barriers and political context are likely to create¶ barriers (though not unique to) for the advancement of the nanotechnology industry. ¶ Advancement involves the diffusion of the technology across the entire economy.¶ The cost issue : It would help the reader have some perspective if we provide examples¶ as to how costly it is to set up a nanotechnology facility. In Costa Rica, for¶ example, a new nanotechnology facility, with a clean room, reportedly have costed¶ about $50,000 and to equip it will cost extra several hundred thousand dollars. ¶ Rao claims an Atomic Force Microscope, a fundamental tool for characterization¶ at the nanoscale, costs approximately $1.5 million, the ETC Group puts this fi gure¶ at $175,000. Despite these fi gures, however, as Salvarezza puts it, even the developing¶ or less-developed countries can do research on nanotechnology as this research can¶ be done by using relatively cheap equipments such as computer and scanning probe¶ microscopes. In addition, Welland refutes the idea that drug research has to be capital¶ intensive. The author argues that pocket-sized, drug factories “could theoretically¶ end the control of large companies over manufacturing.”¶ These ideas are not left unchallenged as, for example, Waga argues that as scientists¶ work with matter on a smaller scale approaching the nanoscale, more sophisticated ¶ and expensive equipment is required. Is the cost issue a fundamental problem¶ or not and how it should be handled is controversial. What we have in our hands is¶ an emerging technology with variety of applications—some more sophisticated than¶ others (some R&D activity involves less sophisticated powders and some complex¶ quantum computers). One has to understand that an easy access to affordable research¶ in niche application areas could be the right strategy for less-privileged countries.¶ Partnerships and access to information : Partnerships between countries are crucial¶ for successful developing country engagement in nanotechnology . The National¶ Science Foundation in the US suggests that countries can gain from pre-commercialization¶ in nanotechnology and argues that research groups in different¶ countries can provide complementary expertise to solve common problems. stages of R&D U.S. Regs Key U.S. Regs k Commercial Devp The us is the global leader in regulation—additional progress is critical to the development of any form of nanotech Salvi 2k8 (Aatish Salvi is vice president of the NanoBusiness Alliance, “Nano-protecting the public,” pg online @ http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-op-salvikimbrell28feb28,0,4954656.story //um-ef) George, you imply that companies are shirking their responsibility as stewards of nanotechnology. This implication is patently false. For more than two years, the nanotech industry has called for significant increases in funding for environmental, health and safety research on nanotechnology. Nanotech companies been actively engaged with government agencies, having invited such a result of the data collected, agencies such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have been able to make initial safety recommendations. If, as you agencies into their facilities sharing data for some time now. As say, "People overwhelmingly trust regulators with the job of protecting their health," then perhaps so should you. We don't need "nano-specific regulations" because nanomaterials and nanotech companies are answerable to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupation Safety and Health Administration and other regulatory agencies, and are governed (and punishable) by the same regulations and laws that apply to all other manufacturers. These laws regulate nanotech for everything from manufacturing, worker safety and transport to disposal and emissions. The need is for more information so that the agencies are better informed about the different types of nanomaterials and can interpret how the existing regulations should apply. The EPA has very recently published an extensive research plan (PDF) that details its initiatives to gather this data. Our call to lawmakers in Washington is to provide the EPA the necessary funding to execute this plan. There is a rational and good reason for companies to want agencies to be fully informed. We need to have certainty about exactly how the existing regulations apply to our products and materials. Without that certainty, raising capital, getting insurance and selling products to consumers are all made much more difficult. In Washington this week, representatives of nanotech companies and I met with Assistant James B. Gulliford, an assistant administrator at the EPA, and Charles M. Auer, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), to discuss how companies can best work with government agencies. During that discussion, several of the companies agreed to share data on their materials with the EPA and to discuss further research they can perform to help the EPA understand how the class of materials they make work. Of course, companies need to know that their patents, trade secrets and other confidential information will be protected. Our strategy is to entrust the EPA and NIOSH with information in confidence, have the agencies review the data and report their conclusions to the public. George, you claim that the voluntary programs are "wholly inadequate." You claim that such programs "lack incentives for 'bad actors' or those with risky products to participate, leaving out the entities most in need of regulation." Laws are meant as a deterrent and retribution, but they cannot make people be good. If someone wanted to be a "bad actor," it wouldn't matter if the request to report was mandatory or voluntary. The disincentive to act badly for nanotech companies already exists in the forms of the Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and others. These laws are strict in their punishment of any manufacturer that causes harm. You suggest that we follow the E uropean U nion's lead in terms of nanotech regulation . The U nited S tates has more research institutions, publishes more papers and has more nanotech companies than Europe by far . Our agencies and labs have done much more environmental, health and safety research to date than theirs have. Following them would be like the tail wagging the dog . I am glad to hear people think the U.S. agencies are trustworthy . I think so too. They have been dealing with technological change for decades and have a lot of institutional knowledge — both from their successes and mistakes . They have a plan to deal with nanotech, and the industry supports that plan . We want communication to the public to come from government agencies that rely on data, not from organizations that rely on rhetoric. Key to Commercial. Nanotechnic foreign aid promotes stability and helps to open up new markets for us companies Lodwick et al 7 (T. Lodwick*, R. Rodrigues**, R. Sandler***, W.D. Kay**** * Nanotechnology and Society Research Group (NSRG), Northeastern University **Santa Clara University, School of Law, ***NSRG, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, ****NSRG, Deapartment of Political Science, Northeastern University, “nanotechnology and the global poor: the united states policy and international collaborations” pg online @ http://www.nsti.org/procs/Nanotech2007v1/8/T81.501, AC) Nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing have tremendous potential for benefiting the global poor—the approximately 2.77 billion people in the world that live on less that 2 dollars per day (purchasing power parity). For example, nanotechnologies may help provide reliable local energy production and potable water availability, increased agricultural efficiency, inexpensive medical diagnostics and treatments, and greater access to technology and information more generally. This paper examines existing and potential pathways for promoting nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing that benefit the global poor either by directly meeting their needs or supporting nascent industries international collaborations as well as formal international research partnerships are discussed, as is the role of international organizations. However, special attention is given to United States policy. Recommendations regarding intellectual property licensing, incentivizing research on pro-poor nanotechnologies, and promoting collaborations between United States and developing world researchers are made. In the long run, a nanotechnology research and development strategy conducive to realizing the possibilities for nanotechnology to benefit the global poor might constitute an effective form of foreign aid that would also benefit the United States by promoting stability and security in developing nations and creating new markets for United States companies. in developing countries. Informal Environment Regulations on Mexico’s nanotech development key to prevent environmental degradation – only US framework solves HLRCC 12 (High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “UNITED STATESMEXICO HIGH-LEVEL REGULATORY COOPERATION COUNCIL WORK PLAN,” 02/28/2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/united-states-mexico-high-level-regulatory-cooperation-council-work-plan.pdf, AC) Why Should We Do This?¶ 1. Ensuring that the United States and Mexico share information regarding each other’s ¶ respective regulatory approaches to nanotechnology applications and nanomaterials at an ¶ early stage will be critical in reducing risks to environmental and human health while ¶ fostering innovation;¶ 2. Considering a joint framework to align regulatory approaches will ensure consistency for ¶ consumers and industry within and between both countries; and¶ 3. Consistency in a regulatory approach in this area will facilitate responsible manufacturing ¶ and trading of products between the two countries, and will foster the competitiveness of¶ the industry. Regs Key – Enviro & Development Regulated development key to boost competitiveness and avoid environmental and health issues – empirically true in Latin America Kay and Shapira 8 (Luciano, research professional with Ph.D. degree in Public Policy, and Philip, professor in the School of Public Policy, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 09/18/2008, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/, AC) Any assessment of strategies for developing nanotechnology in Latin American countries needs to take into account broader considerations and debates about the potential impacts (both positive and negative) of nanotechnology. Although nanotechnology is anticipated to lead to advances in many technological fields, multiple risks and societal concerns have also been identified, including health and environmental risks and needs for improved regulation (Glanzel et al. 2003; Roco 2003; Maynard 2006; Besley et al. 2008). This has given rise to uncertainty about not only the scale but also the distribution of nanotechnology’s potential social, economic, health, and environmental impacts and risks (Cobb and Macoubrie 2004).¶ Reflecting these concerns and driven by desires to bolster the governance of nanotechnology development, initiatives have been sponsored in several advanced countries to analyze the broad range of impacts associated with nanotechnology and, in some cases, to engage stakeholders and the public, in dialogue and deliberation. How such efforts will constructively change the development of nanotechnology and its impacts remains to be seen (Bennett and Sarewitz 2006), but they are underway. For example, in the US, the legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns” in the development of nanotechnology is required by legislation,21 nanotechnology research centers are obliged to consider these consideration of “ethical, issues, and new centers and projects have been sponsored to address these concerns (NSET 2004, 2005; Sarewitz and Guston 2004). Initiatives to consider the societal aspects of nanotechnology have also been launched in Europe and Japan (RAE 2004; Fogelberg and Sanden 2008; Ishizu et al. 2008).¶ In Latin America, intermediate and developing countries could be vulnerable to risks associated with the application of nanotechnology, particularly given weaknesses in regulatory systems, yet may also lag behind developed economies in gaining economic benefits from this emerging technology (Invernizzi 2007; Invernizzi and Foladori 2005). For example, the level of resources available for societal assessment is far lower than in developed countries. Yet, there is recognition that Invernizzi (2007) observes that nanotechnology in Brazil has been embraced and promoted by scientific elites as a mean for progress, efficiency, and competitiveness, but increasing social and economic inequalities in the country may actually prevent the technological benefits to be equally distributed. Indeed, in more general terms, Invernizzi and Foladori (2005) point out that the dominant socioeconomic structures in Latin American countries may hinder the deployment of nanotechnology applications that could provide benefits for the poorest groups. For example, these authors suggest that while quantum dot technologies have the potential to detect HIV/AIDS molecules at early onset, overstretched medical systems and an inability to afford expensive new treatments may limit use in developing countries. Moreover, they fear that even if nanotechnology in areas such as water filtration is applied in developing countries (including Latin America,) the poor majorities in these countries will not immediately benefit. Regs Key: Commercialization Increased funding to understand the environmental effects of nanotech is needed Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) Understand and mitigate the environmental and human health effects of nanomaterials. As Scott Walsh notes in his article in this issue, our current understanding of the environmental and human health effects of nanomaterials is limited. A failure to understand and manage these health risks could put the nanotechnology revolution on hold. Reinsurance companies such as Swiss Re have made it very clear that they do not wish to be left holding the bag if nanotechnology poses significant risks to human health. Although some research is already being done, increased funding for agencies such as the EPA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences is clearly needed. Such activities at the EPA now account for less than 1 percent of the total NNI budget. Effective Regs Key Federal regulations key to effective nanotech White House 11 (Executive Office of the President, “MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES,” 06/09/2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/nanotechnology-regulation-andoversight-principles.pdf, AC) The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), one of the Obama Administration's top science and ¶ technology priorities, has invested almost $14 billion in research and development since its inception in ¶ FY 2001. A key goal of the NNI is the responsible development of nanotechnology, which requires ¶ maximizing the benefits of nanotechnology while understanding and managing the relevant risks. As the ¶ President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology noted, "In the absence of sound science on ¶ the safe use of nanomaterials and of technologies and products containing them, the chance of ¶ unintentionally harming people and the environment increases. At the same time, uncertainty and ¶ speculation about potential risks threaten to undermine consumer and business confidence." Accordingly, ¶ the Federal Government has significantly increased funding on the environmental, health and safety ¶ dimensions of nanotechnology, from $37.7 million in FY 2006 to $123.5 million in FY 2012. ¶ The National Economic Council (NEC), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of ¶ Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) led a ¶ multi-agency consensus-based process to develop a set of principles to guide development and ¶ implementation of policies for the oversight of nanotechnology applications and nanomaterials. This ¶ document is intended to summarize generally applicable principles relevant to promoting a balanced, ¶ science-based approach to regulating nanomaterials and other applications of nanotechnology in a manner ¶ that protects human health, safety, and the environment without prejudging new technologies or creating ¶ unnecessary barriers to trade or hampering innovation. These principles build on the foundation provided ¶ by current regulatory statutes and do not supersede existing legal authorities or hinder Federal agencies ¶ from enforcing or applying their existing statutory and regulatory authority as mandated by law. Federal ¶ agencies that have regulatory responsibilities, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. ¶ Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, must continue to ¶ implement sound policies to protect public health, safety, and the environment. ¶ The Federal Government is responsible for protecting human health and the environment and takes ¶ regulatory and oversight actions to ensure the safe production, processing, use, and disposal of many ¶ kinds of products - including foods and consumer products, chemicals used in the workplace, medical ¶ products, and pesticides. This framework for oversight and regulation of nanomaterials and applications ¶ of nanotechnology builds on existing laws and individual authorities, such as the risk-based approaches ¶ currently in use by some Federal agencies to meet this overarching responsibility. A fundamental element ¶ of these risk-based approaches is to examine those characteristics and properties of a material that are ¶ relevant to considerations about human and environmental safety-such as exposure, biodistribution ¶ (including absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, ¶ and pharmacokinetics- and therefore present issues of potential regulatory relevance. Such risk-based ¶ approaches reflect awareness that regulation should be grounded in the best available science and able to ¶ evolve as scientific insights mature and the body of evidence grows and evolves. Consistent with current ¶ law, regulatory agencies should take a science-based approach to risk management. Effective Regulations Gov’t key to effective R&D and development regulations Kay and Shapira 8 (Luciano, research professional with Ph.D. degree in Public Policy, and Philip, professor in the School of Public Policy, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 09/18/2008, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/, AC) Moreover, our data shows relatively low government involvement in nanotechnology research publication, except for the role of government clearly may extends beyond this. Nanotechnology policies may give the role of broker to government agencies to enable knowledge transfer, sharing, and exchange between industry and academia. These agencies may also help in coordinating national R&D efforts and promote broader participation and citizen input on the use of nanotechnology applications (Chiancone et al. 2007; Invernizzi 2007). Furthermore, they can design regulation schemes to ensure the development of nanotechnology according to social and environmental standards Argentina where there are several governmental labs that are actively involved in research. However, Regs/Assistance Key Squo development is focused solely on competitiveness – govt regulations key to solve structural problems Foladori and Invernizzi 12 (Guillermo Foladori and Noela Invernizzi, ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies, “Social and Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology Development in Latin America and the Caribbean,” 2012, AC) The science and technology policy of the majority of countries¶ in Latin America explicitly affirms that the priority function of¶ nanotechnology is to promote international competiveness. The search¶ for market niches and the orientation towards the global market are clear¶ and explicit objectives in the national policies of the region. Although¶ there are research groups that work on aspects of nanotechnology that ¶ have a direct impact on society and the environment, such as research¶ groups on nanotechnology on health, on environmental protection, on ¶ alternatives for potable water, and alternative energies, the fact that the¶ political orientation has been towards competiveness, in addition to the¶ strong pressure that public research is conducted with the participation ¶ of private companies, raises doubts that if the potential impact will not ¶ end with simply increasing the profits of the companies involved. In ¶ addition, the only way that the science and technology policy responds¶ to interests more directed towards society is if unions, consumers¶ groups, environmental organizations, and other social organizations¶ participate in the decision making, something which is absent in these¶ countries.¶ The second issue of concern is the absence of training programs for the¶ work force, and also at the different educational levels. Nanotechnology¶ policy is oriented towards the idea of “centers of excellence” staffed by¶ highly skilled and educated employees. It is presumed that these centers¶ of excellence will provide increased opportunities for innovation. But¶ no country develops without supporting laborers with all levels of¶ educational background, and without preparing and qualifying its¶ workforce. There exists a strong contradiction between the processes¶ of privatization and deterioration of elementary, secondary, and¶ university education, and the idea of developing centers of excellence / ¶ specialization. The United States, Japan and the European Union stated¶ the necessity of educating about nanotechnology in the curriculum of¶ elementary and secondary schools. There have been no similar plans¶ made for any Latin America or the Caribbean countries’ educational¶ system; hence, the manner in which nanotechnology comes solely¶ from the centers of excellence only can orient it towards the foreign¶ market and competitiveness, thereby losing the vision of the role that¶ this technology could have to relieve basic problems of the population¶ in general.¶ Leadership & Regs Key New regulations and US leadership key to spur nanotech development Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) Although the research community and companies involved in nanotechnology must be careful not to overpromise and underdeliver, the technology’s long-term potential is awe-inspiring. Although we will inevitably be surprised by the future course of nanotechnology, with continued investments in high-risk research many of the grand challenges that have been established will eventually be met. However, we cannot expect the United States to lead this technological revolution with the current policies that short-change research. It is our sincere hope that we will respond to the growing challenges to U.S. scientific, technological, and economic leadership before it is too late. K Investor Confidence Federal leadership key to investor confidence in nanotechnology Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) Help nanotechnology start-ups cross the “valley of death.”Part of the argument for increased funding for research is that it will eventually fuel the creation of new companies, new industries, and high-wage jobs. Moving ideas from the lab to the marketplace is never easy, particularly in nanotechnology. A big gap exists between showing that a nanostructure has some novel and useful property and demonstrating high-volume cost-effective manufacturing. Although one might argue that venture capitalists should fund this “reduction to practice,” most of them are reluctant to invest in early-stage technology development. With institutional investors still counting their losses from the “dot com” era, they are urging venture capitalists to shift to later-stage, less risky investments, reducing the capital available for seed investments in spinoffs from universities and national labs. We believe that the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Program should be used more aggressively to help nanotechnology start-ups cross the chasm between proof of principle and reduction to practice. NIH has done this by increasing the duration and size of its SBIR grants for nanotechnology and allowing entrepreneurs to submit a broad range of ideas for using nanotechnology to help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease. Other agencies should adopt a similar approach in applications of nanotechnology that are related to their mission. Commercialization Federal leadership and commitment key to motivate companies to commercialize the nanotech industry Theodore and Kunz 5 (Louis Theodore, EngScD, a professor of chemical engineering for fifty years, Robert G. Kunz, environmental engineering manager at a major industrial gas and chemical company before retiring after twenty-six years. He also worked in the petroleum industry, on plant design/construction, and for a manufacturer of air pollution control catalyst. He is currently an independent environmental consultant. Dr. Kunz earned a BChE degree in chemical engineering from Manhattan College, a PhD in chemical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, an MS in environmental engineering from Newark College of Engineering, and an MBA from Temple University, April 22, 2005, “Nanotechnology: Environmental Implications and Solutions,” p. 64) For nanotechnology’s most ardent supporters, the scope of this emerging held seems ¶ to be limited only by the imaginations of those who would dream at these unprecedented dimensions. However, considerable technological and financial obstacles¶ still need to be reconciled before nanotechnology’s full promise can be realized.¶ Ranking high among the challenges is the ongoing need to develop and perfect¶ reliable techniques to produce (and mass produce) nanoscaled particles that have¶ not just the desirable particle sizes and particle size distributions but also a¶ minimal number of structural defects and acceptable purity levels, since these¶ latter attributes can drastically alter the anticipated behavior of the nanoscaled particles. Experience to date shows that the scale up issues associated with moving¶ today's promising nanotechnology-related developments from laboratory- and¶ pilot-scale demonstrations to full-scale commercialization can be considerable.¶ The prevailing technologies for producing nanoscaled particles and carbon nano-¶ tubes are discussed in Section 2.3. In addition to the inherent challenges associated with designing and scaling up¶ various methodologies to produce nanoscaled materials that have the right particle¶ attributes, additional challenges arise in terms of handling and using these minute¶ particles as functional additives in other matrix materials. For instance, the extremely high surface area of these minute particles creates problems that must be¶ reconciled related to excessive attractive or repulsive surface charges. unwanted ¶ nanoparticle agglomeration, problems with dispersion and blending, and so on.¶ Meanwhile, nanoscaled materials generally command very high prices compared¶ to conventional, macroscopic particles that have essentially the same chemical com-¶ position. Such high costs result from energy that is required to reduce the particle¶ size and from the high research and development and prototyping costs that are¶ incurred during the discovery phase of any novel materials and the related manufacturing processes. However, many industry observers acknowledge that the current¶ prices for many nanoscaled materials represent experimental quantities produced¶ at pilot facilities, and predict that the prices are likely to come down, once steady-¶ state, commercial-scale manufacturing conditions are perfected and pursued.7¶ Ultimately, premium costs associated with nanoscaled particles, devices, and¶ systems will have to be proven and justified in performance. For instance, if a¶ low-cost, micron-scale powder will suffice in a particular application, the end user¶ is not likely to pay a premium Companies need a strong motivation for¶ why they should replace an existing approach with a newer, nanotechnology-¶ based approach.' Such capacity and cost issues will be key factors that will continue¶ to influence market development and commercial adoption of nanotechnology-¶ based materials and processes into the future. price for its nanoscaled counterpart, whose cost¶ may be orders of magnitude higher.". U.S. Leads Now Uniq: Tech Leadership Now US leads globally in nanotech – research proves Intellectual Property Today 2-13 – (“U.S. is Global Leader Again in Nanotech Patents – New Research Report,” Intellectual Property Today, 2/13/13, http://www.iptoday.com/news-article.asp?id=8222&type=tech)//RH The U.S. has a reputation for being at the head of the innovation line, particularly when it comes to technology, a status the nation has maintained for over a century. But, whether the U.S. will remain the global leader in the growing field of nanotechnology is research report by Intellectual Property lawyers at McDermott Will & Emery. Entitled, “Intellectual Property in the Next Technology Revolution: How Does the United States Stack Up?” the report provides a detailed analysis of the 2012 nanotechnology patent literature. This year’s findings, outlined in McDermott’s second annual nanotechnology report, reveal that the U.S. has, in fact, maintained the lead. Key Highlights of 2012: U.S.-based companies are the top assignees in nanotechnology patent literature, with emphases in the Computers and Electronics, Materials, Chemistry, Biological Sciences, Metrology and Instrumentation, and Energy sectors. In total, the volume of nanotechnology patent literature published in 2012 was 3% greater than that of 2011, including approximately 550 more U.S. patents being granted in 2012 compared to 2011. The United States again leads the world in nanotechnology patent literature, which is an indicator of nanotechnology innovation. Eastern Asia, the subject of a new especially China and South Korea, have seen some of the greatest growth in nanotechnology patent literature over the last decade. Funding Key Funding Solves Problems Increased funding would solve any problems with nanotech Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) The NNI has continued to evolve over time. In response to the concerns about the potential environmental and health risks of nanomaterials, the latest NNI strategic plan identifies “responsible development of nanotechnology” as one of the four principal goals. Several agencies have stepped up their research in this area, although as we argue below, more can and should be done. The National Toxicology Program, for example, is investigating the toxicity of nanotubes, quantum dots, and titanium dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supporting research on the fate and transport of manufactured nanomaterials in the environment. The EPA and other regulatory agencies are exploring whether existing laws and regulations such as the Toxic Substances Control Act need to be modified to take into account the size-dependent properties of nanoparticles. Funding k Competition Status quo nanotech funding not enough – federal funding key to stay competitive with other countries Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) Although the NNI has made significant progress, we are concerned that federal funding for nanoscale S&E has been flat in recent years. The administration’s FY 2006 budget, for example, actually proposes a decrease in funding as compared to the level of support provided by Congress in FY 2005. We believe that there is a compelling case for sustained increases in federal funding for nanoscale S&E, particularly if this is done in the context of increased investments in the physical sciences and engineering more generally. First, federal agencies are still able to fund only a tiny fraction of the meritorious proposals that are submitted. In its most recent solicitation for Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, for example, NSF received 48 proposals and could fund only 6. Even when an agency does fund a proposal, the size and duration of the grant are often inadequate. Second, foreign governments are continuing to aggressively ramp up their investments in nanoscale S&E. Given that international leadership in nanotechnology is up for grabs, allowing U.S. funding to stagnate while foreign governments continue to provide double-digit increases seems to us to be an incredibly risky strategy. Third, only the federal government is in a position to support the long-term high-risk research that is beyond the time horizons of companies. Finally, researchers have demonstrated the potential of nanotechnology to make important contributions to a wide range of national goals and key economic sectors, such as health, clean energy, information technology, new materials, national and homeland security, sustainable development, manufacturing, and space exploration. Stagnant or declining budgets will make it difficult to pursue these and other opportunities. Below are just a few of the areas where new and expanded initiatives in nanoscale S&E would make a big difference. EU Model Bad EU regulation fails – EU lobbies and poor research Soliman 12 [Adam Soliman is an agricultural economist, law school graduate and researcher focused on legal and economic issues in the Agriculture, Resource & Food sectors. “The Need for Stronger Nanotechnology Regulation” October 16 2012 http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/why-we-should-have-moreregulations-on-nanotechnology/#.UexFMD772oc] The EU organization Strategy for Nanotechnology asserts that nanotechnology has the potential to enhance quality of life and industrial competitiveness, and therefore lobbies aggressively for minimal legislation on nanotechnology. Current laws state that anyone producing or importing nanomaterials into Europe is required to provide written notification to public authorities; this notification requires the manufacturer to conduct research illustrating the properties and dangers of the product (7). However, this research is not monitored, making the data difficult to validate and allowing manufacturers to exaggerate, forge or omit crucial information. AT: EU/UK UK regulation fails Vaughan 12 [Steven Vaughan, SET Lecturer in Obligations at the Law School, Cardiff University and a former associate with Latham & Watkins and Freshfields, “Laying down the law on nanotechnology”, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/11/law-nanotechnology-regulation]//PP Regulatory efforts to control the use of nanotechnology at UK and EU levels have been limited. The previous government had a UK Nanotechnologies Strategy which prioritised the commercial development and application of nanotechnology. In the context of risk and regulation, their view was that existing laws would be sufficient. However, as demonstrated by the Cardiff-based BRASS Centre in great detail in 2008, while existing laws can and do regulate nanotechnology, they do so imperfectly. Put simply, there are gaps in existing regulatory frameworks which mean that nanotechnology is not wholly covered. Some of these gaps exist because of a misplaced notion that nanomaterials are equivalent to their bulk counterparts. For example, the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 make it an offence to release hazardous chemicals into groundwater without a permit. Hazardous substances are those which are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate, and other substances which give rise to an equivalent level of concern. This leaves us in a chicken and egg situation. For a substance to be characterised as hazardous, there must be evidence that that substance poses unacceptable risks. However, we still await testing methodologies sufficient to adequately evaluate the potential risks of nanosubstances (as well as internationally accepted standards by which testing may occur). On a practical level, this likely means that most nanosubstances will not be classified as hazardous and so can be discharged into groundwater or disposed of as non-hazardous waste. Other gaps in existing regulatory regimes in the UK exist because legislation is based on thresholds or concentrations. Health and safety regulation is partly premised on occupational exposure levels; environmental permits are granted on the basis of emission levels; chemicals fall within or without rigorous testing requirements based on tonnage production thresholds. Given that nanotechnology is the technology of the very, very tiny, using thresholds in regulation means that much nanotechnology will fall below the relevant tonnage or concentration criteria and so fail to be fully regulated. EU regulation fails Vaughan 12 [Steven Vaughan, SET Lecturer in Obligations at the Law School, Cardiff University and a former associate with Latham & Watkins and Freshfields, “Laying down the law on nanotechnology”, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/11/law-nanotechnology-regulation]//PP The approach of the EU has been little better. The 2008 EU Regulation on Food Additives contains the first targeted legislative provision on nanomaterials. The effect of this provision is that food additives which are produced using "nanotechnology" or which have undergone a "change in particle size" need to undergo a safety evaluation. As a regulatory technique, there is nothing novel about pre-market approvals. However, there is no definition of "nanotechnology" in this Regulation and no guidance on what a "change in particle size" might mean — is this only a change to a particle size under 100nm, or something else entirely? We also come back (once again) to our scientific inability to assess the full suite of inherent nanochemical properties. Given these issues, it questionable whether this provision will have any practical impact whatsoever. As from 2013, the EU Cosmetics Regulation requires that any cosmetic which contains nanomaterials (and here there is a definition) must be labelled. This obligation is limited: a requirement to put "(nano)" next to the relevant ingredient on the ingredients list. There is no need to label the product with "contains nano" or any requirement to put a notice on the relevant packaging. Regulatory theory says that labels allow consumers free choice to choose between alternate products on the market. But, as my colleague Elen Stokes has observed, nano labels have been rejected in other jurisdictions (including the US) for being ineffective. Simply ask yourself this question: when was the last time you ever picked up your body wash in the shower and scrutinised the ingredients list? And, even if you did notice "(nano)" next to an ingredient, what would that mean to you: a warning as to possible side effects? A selling point as to unique properties? Something else? 2AC UK Answers UK fails a) Budget cuts – its been slashed BBC, 10 – UK news (“UK nanotech centres may be axed, says science minister”, BBC News, 23 July 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukpolitics-10728357)//AE Britain's 24 nanotechnology centres could be among the casualties of cuts to the UK science budget, science minister David Willetts has said.¶ The previous government spent £50m on the network of research facilities at universities across the UK.¶ But Mr Willetts told MPs there were too many small "sub-critical" research centres and they should be centralised.¶ He said it was "most unlikely" the nanotech centres would still be open in 18 months.¶ Mr Willetts told the science and technology committee on Thursday that he was in negotiations with the Treasury about what would be axed from the science budget in October's comprehensive spending review.¶ In common with other government departments, science is facing cuts of between 25% and 40%. Following consultation with Britain's "learned societies," such as the Royal Society, Mr Willetts said he had written to the Treasury to indicate areas of research where funding could be cut. b) Poor strategy – lack of regulations and knowledge gaps Punter, 10 - Public Affairs Officer (John, “GOVERNMENT'S NANO NON- STRATEGY”, 19 March 2010, UK consumer engagement, http://www.which.co.uk/documents/pdf/uk-nanotechnologies-strategy---which---briefing-208381.pdf)//AE Government’s Nanotechnology strategy fails to deliver for UK consumers¶ The Government has published its Nanotechnology strategy ‘UK Nanotechnologies Strategy – Small Technologies, Great Opportunities’1. The Strategy fails to address some central concerns including research gaps and the inadequate reporting procedure. This is essential to ensure consumers are able to enjoy the benefits of this exciting new technology without being harmed or misled.¶ Urgent Government action is needed to find out where nanomaterials are being used, close regulatory loopholes, improve understanding of the impact of nanomaterials on the body, improve strategic coordination and ensure enforcement happens at local level. The strategy fails to adequately deal with any of these.¶ A new strategic approach is needed from Government ¶ A new approach is needed to address the flaws in the current strategy. Which? is calling for the following steps to be taken to ensure new developments in nanotechnology are welcomed by consumers:¶ > REPORTING: A mandatory reporting scheme to understand developments and consumers’ exposure to nanomaterials. The Government has identified that the voluntary reporting scheme does not work but has failed to propose a mandatory scheme to assess which nanomaterials are on the market or in development. ¶ > RESEARCH: Further research into health and safety impacts of nano materials. The Strategy identifies important knowledge gaps, but it has not responded with the required urgency to address these.¶ > CO-ORDINATION: A single strategic stakeholder group that represents all sectors to lead the development of nanotechnology. The current proposal for three groups overseeing three areas will not provide a coherent, joined-up framework.¶ > REGULATION: Nanomaterials must be included in all regulations relevant to product safety and clear guidance provided so that obligations including meaningful risk assessment and prior approval are clear. ¶ > ENFORCEMENT: Regulations must be effectively enforced with potentially unsafe products removed from the market.¶ > CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT: Effective consumer engagement around potential developments to ensure they are in line with consumer expectations. China Model Bad No Safety China does not invest in safety Qiu 11 [Jane Qiu, Writer and commentator specialising in science, technology and China-related issues, “Nano-safety studies urged in China”, 18 September 2012, Nature international weekly journal of Science, http://www.nature.com/news/nano-safety-studies-urged-in-china1.11437#auth-1]//PP Here is a recipe for anxiety: take China’s poorly enforced chemical-safety regulations, add its tainted record on product safety and stir in the uncertain risks of a booming nanotechnology industry. As an antidote to this uneasy mixture, the country should carry out more-extensive safety studies and improve regulatory oversight of synthetic nanomaterials, leading Chinese researchers said at the 6th International Conference on Nanotoxicology in Beijing this month. “This is the only way to maintain the competitiveness of China’s nanotechnology sector,” says Zhao Yuliang, deputy director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ National Center for Nanoscience and Technology (NCNST) in Beijing. “We certainly don’t want safety issues to become a trade barrier for nano-based products.” China’s investment in nanotechnology has grown rapidly during the past decade, and its tally of patent applications in the field has surpassed those of Europe and the United States (see ‘Patent boom’). But only 3% of the investment is used for safety studies, says Zhao, compared with about 6% of federal nanotechnology funding in the United States. “The situation must be changed soon,” he says. AT: Brazil CP U.S. Assistance Key Mexico Mexico needs govt specific plan for R&D – regulations and US assistance key Foladori and Invernizzi 7 (Guillermo Foladori and Noela Invernizzi, ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies, “Nanotechnologies in Latin America,” December 2007, AC) It is worth mentioning that neither Brazil, nor Argentina, nor México have created¶ programs to examine the possible social, economic, environmental, political¶ and ethical impacts of the use of nanotechnology.3 In contrast, most of the industrialized¶ countries have solid agendas to promote the discussion of these issues.¶ The absence of such schemes in Latin America indicates a lack of public awareness¶ about the use of this technology and shows the profound hope that the governments ¶ in the region have in nanotechnology to conquer international markets,¶ even though its use would entail risks and impacts not fully understood. ¶ The Mexican case is somewhat different from the Argentinean and Brazilian¶ cases. There is no specific plan or national program linked to nanotechnology in¶ México, even though nanotechnology is considered a strategic sector for development,¶ as identified in 2002 in the Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnología¶ 2001-2006 (Special Program on Science and Technology 2001-2006). There have¶ been efforts from a group of scientists to promote such a plan (IPICyT, 2002). The¶ United States-México Foundation for Science (“FUMEC”) has shown support as¶ well. In addition, nanotechnology research and development in México has been¶ conducted by individuals and regulated through the bilateral and multilateral agreements¶ that some research centers have signed. However, this reflects a path¶ where specific interests regulate the development of nanotechnology. ***Other CPs*** AT Precautionary Principle CP 2AC PP CP Answers Precautionary principle is too passive – prevents the US from defining the regulatory landscape US Chamber of Commerce 13 [US Chamber of Commerce “Nanotechnology” 2013 http://www.uschamber.com/issues/regulatory/nanotechnology] Objective Ensure that nanotechnology is not subject to excessive government regulation, that the economic benefits of nanotechnology are maximized, and that the business community has a collective and uniform voice in the development of any regulatory structure. Summary of the Issue Nanotechnology is the creation of materials, devices, and systems through the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules. It is a term used to define the application of materials whose size is measured in billionths of a meter (e.g., a human hair is 100,000 nanometers in diameter). At the nanoscale, materials exhibit unique properties, allowing for new manufacturing possibilities and applications in a variety of fields. These unique properties present new challenges in both the regulatory and legal arenas. Despite these challenges, the United States must maintain its lead in nanotechnology development—not just in the scientific arena, but in the commercial one as well. Consider that, by 2014, approximately $2.6 trillion in global manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnology, or about 15% of total output. Global spending on nanotechnology research and development has increased every year, with industry spending $4.5 billion in 2005 and governments spending another $4.6 billion. Moreover, venture capitalists invested approximately $500 million last year in nanotech ventures. Some luddites are urging the United States to proceed under the precautionary principle, advocating inaction until any possible risks associated with nanotechnology have been identified and quantified. Such a course would not only be unwise, but it would almost certainly cost the United States the opportunity to define the regulatory landscape in this field. Instead, as a nation, we should continue to develop commercial applications for nanotechnology while simultaneously pursuing efforts to standardize risk assessment protocols. Domestic Development CP 2AC Domestic Develop Ans Coop Key U.S. Domestic development AND international coop is critical to have lasting effect on Nano Development NSTC 2k [National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, “ NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan,” July, http://webcache. googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:usLHz81XDuAJ:www.wtec. org/loyola/nano/IWGN. Implementation.Plan/nni. implementation.plan.pdf+ united+states+and+ nanotechnology+initiative+and+ %22international+cooperation% 22+OR+multilateral!&hl=en&gl= us] The promises of nanotechnology can best be realized through long term and balanced investment in U.S. infrastructure and human resources in five R&D categories in particular: (1) Nanostructure properties: Develop and extend our understanding of biological, chemical, materials science, electronic, magnetic, optical, and structural properties in nanostructures; (2) Synthesis and processing: Enable the atomic and molecular control of material building blocks and develop engineering tools to provide the means to assemble and utilize these tailored building blocks for new processes and devices in a wide variety of applications. Extend the traditional approaches to patterning and microfabrication to include parallel processing with proximal probes, selfassembling, stamping, and templating. Pay particular attention to the interface with bionanostructures and bio-inspired structures, multifunctional and adaptive nanostructures, scaling approaches, and commercial affordability; (3) Characterization and manipulation: Discover and develop new experimental tools to broaden the capability to measure and control nanostructured matter, including developing new standards of measurement. Pay particular attention to tools capable of measuring/manipulating single macro- and supra-molecules of biological interest; (4) Modeling and simulation: Accelerate the application of novel concepts and high-performance computation to the prediction of nanostructured properties, phenomena, and processes; (5) Device and system concepts: Stimulate the innovative application of nanostructure properties in ways that might be exploited in new technologies. International Perspective . The United States does not dominate nanotechnology research . There is strong international interest, with nearly twice as much ongoing research overseas as in the United States (see the worldwide study Nanostructure Science and Engineering, NSTC 1999). Other regions, particularly Japan and Western Europe, are supporting work that is equal to the quality and breadth of the science done in the United States because there, too, scientists and national leaders have determined that nanotechnology has the potential to be a major economic factor during the next several decades. This situation is unlike the other post-war technological revolutions, where the United States enjoyed earlier leads . The international dimensions of nanotechnology research and its potential applications implies that the United States must put in place an infrastructure that is equal to that which exists anywhere in the world. This emerging field also creates a unique opportunity for the United States to partner with other countries in ways that are mutually beneficial through information sharing, cooperative research, and study by young U.S. researchers at foreign centers of excellence. A suitable U.S. infrastructure is also needed to compete and collaborate with those groups. Ban Nano CP 2AC Ban Nano Answers Coop Key – Ban Fails Regulations and cooperation between countries before nanotech is developed are key to check a nano arms race – an all-out ban and current treaties won’t work Gubrud 97 (Mark Avrum Gubrud, a research associate, Center for Superconductivity Research (University of Maryland, College Park), is ''a physicist, writer and social activist, November 1997, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/, “Nanotechnology and International Security”) It is highly likely the world will continue to be divided into sovereign states with competing militaries as the nanotechnic revolution approaches, and that, certainly in the United States at least, much of the research leading to it will be sponsored through the military with an eye to military applications. Therefore, if we are to have any hope of avoiding a catastrophic arms race it is essential to consider possibilities for control of nanotechnic arms.¶ It is easy to dismiss the idea of an outright ban on the use of assemblers in weapons manufacture, the use of nanostructures in weapons, or any similar proposal, as impractical and unverifiable. What is often lost sight of, however, is that arms control always involves more than treaties and "national means of verification." Above all, it requires the will to control dangerous and undesirable weapons, and a willingness to cooperate in order to achieve such control. If such will is present among the parties who need to be involved, there is much that can be done.¶ The most threatening aspect of a possible nanotechnic arms buildup is the sheer mass of weaponry that may be produced. Not producing such masses of arms, nor preparing the facilities that may be required for their production, is not an unverifiable commitment. Voluntary transparency, by which nations allow their treaty partners to maintain prescribed monitoring capabilities on national territory, can permit asssurance that no such large-scale buildup is taking place. Such arrangements will only remain effective, however, as long as nations refrain from attempting to settle disputes by violence. Even the mere threat of violence, ordinary "peaceful" confrontation, is likely to provoke withdrawal from a weak control regime in the event of a serious crisis.¶ It should be much easier to put a control regime in place before any large-scale confrontation develops, while nations are at peace, than to stop an arms race in forward gear and ask for intrusive monitoring so that it can be reversed. Unfortunately, arms control, unlike arms acquisition, has no natural constituency other than public anxiety about the danger of war, and this is at its lowest precisely when the greatest progress could and should be made towards eliminating weapons left over from the last arms race, and erecting a structure that can hold off the next one.¶ Probably the most important arms control step that could be taken now, other than continuing the process of nuclear disarmament, is to conclude a general and global treaty banning the placement or testing of destructive devices in orbit, and the targeting of objects in space by ground-based weapons. The possibility of a rapid buildup of space weapons is the most dangerous and destabilizing prospect of 21st century military confrontation. The recent US test of a ground-based antisatellite laser is appalling; let us hope it serves to demonstrate the real continuing danger of a future space arms race.¶ The vexing questions of outer space and sea law, and the division of resources that may become valuable in the future, must be addressed before these issues become a source of international conflict, that is, before the technology is developed which makes what has heretofore been viewed as a "commons" an attractive target for sovereign ownership.¶ In spite of the arguments made above that nuclear weapons might serve as a stabilizing factor in a nanotechnic confrontation, continuing and completing the job of nuclear disarmament is an urgent priority. It is inexcusable to leave our people and our civilization exposed to the danger of nuclear annihilation at a time when there are few sources of tension between the major nuclear powers and none that are considered remotely serious enough to occasion a crisis that could lead to war.¶ Nations must learn to trust one another enough to live without massive arsenals, by surrendering some of the prerogatives of sovereignty so as to permit intrusive verification of arms control agreements, and by engaging in cooperative military arrangements. Ultimately, the only way to avoid nanotechnic confrontation and the next world war is by evolving an integrated international security system, in effect a single global regime. World government that could become a global tyranny may be undesirable, but nations can evolve a system of international laws and norms by mutual agreement, while retaining the right to determine their own local laws and customs within their territorial jurisdictions. Conditions CP General Conditions 2AC S&T = Disad US S&T key to international tensions, relations, and poverty – only selfless scientific assistance solves – NSF assessment concludes (solvency takeout to conditions CPs) Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH The exchange of scientific information and the cooperation in international scientific research activities were identified by the first NSF Director, Alan Waterman, as two of the major responsibilities that Congress had given the agency. NSF embraced those responsibilities in its first cycle of grants, supporting international travel and the dissemination of two-way flow of information and individuals between nations resulted in both better science and improved international goodwill. In 1955, NSF took a comprehensive look at the role of the Federal Government in international science, and warned that it was important that “activities of the U.S. Government in the area of science not be tagged internationally as another weapon in our cold war arsenal.” NSF concluded that international scientific collaboration, based on considerations of scientific merit and the selflessness of the United States, could help ease international tensions, improve the image of the United States abroad, and help raise the standard of living among less-developed nations. scientific information originating overseas. NSF recognized that a K Answers Framework Aff Stops Nano Wars And, discussing the REASONS for Nano development in Latin America are ESSENTIAL – public discussions about regulated and TRANSPARENT nano has an effect in the real world –can stop World Wars Over Nano and ensure the public actually reaps the benefits of Nano Foladori et al 2k6 (Chistopher Coenen and Jürgen Altmann, “The U.S. Militaryâ₠¬â„ ¢s Influence on Nanotechnology Research in Latin America,” pg online @ http://inesap.org/node/109 //um-ef) It is natural to think that technological revolutions are intended for the general progress of human society. This is not entirely correct, because technological revolutions almost always bring benefits to some more than others. The idea that, over the long term, improvements to living conditions will reach everyone is still prevalent. The illusion about these future benefits were already the object of criticism by the environmentalists, they put the process of industrialization in the docket, illustrating that what could bring benefits in the short term could also bring evils in the long term. We are on the cusp of a new technological revolution; according to some, it will be the most rapid and most profound of all to date: the revolution in nanotechnology. Although it is somewhat early to evaluate its possible benefits, if we pay attention to the orientation of such technology we can anticipate some important differences from the preceding technological revolutions that occurred throughout the history of humankind. The Neolithic Revolution oriented itself to the improvement of food production. The Industrial Revolution, with a wider impact, guaranteed an important increase in first, the clothing industry, but later on in the production of daily supplies and on the means of production. The transportation revolution that took place at it is the peculiarity of nanotechnology development that it is being pursued with a very high attachment to military investments. U.S. public funds for nanotechnology research since 2000, when the National Nanotechnology Initiative was launched, fund between one third and one fourth of the budget of direct military investments. This, obviously, forces other countries to follow the same trajectory. This can contribute, perhaps, to the end of the 19th century had a clear impact on the circulation of merchandise and people. But the perpetuation of wars worldwide. But to blame technology for human misfortunes is like giving life to it, which is illogical. The development of military technology is the result of the ongoing struggle to maintain economic hegemony and control over world politics, through direct violence. This is not a problem of technology; it is more the result of the imperialist character that some economies apply to S&T research. Scientists, many times, find themselves with the uncertainty that their research could or could not be directly financed by military institutions (often without their knowledge). It is therefore important for the world and for Latin America to generate public debate about the orientation of S&T. The existence of ethical committees in charge of monitoring technology development and its financing become a necessity. The same applies to any research experimenting with human beings . Given the fact that in Latin America most of the research is still financed by public funds, it becomes paramount that S&T benefit the majority of the population . They should never be attached to military interests and/or commitments. 2AC Public Debate Key And, public debate on Nano regulations has a real effect – can change public policies Schomberg 2k10 (“Introduction: Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies Options for Framing Public Policy,” pg online @ http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/understanding-public-debate-onnanotechnologies_en.pdf //um-ef) In the case of nanotechnology policy , then, it seems likely that we are still in the initial phases of development. There are not, so far, any internationally agreed definitions relating to the technology (despite repeated announcements of their imminence), and nanoparticles continue to be defined as ‘chemical substances’ under the European regulatory framework REACH. (Analogies are also made with asbestos, as a way to grasp hold of possible environmental and human health effects, but these are contested. There is no certainty that they will become the definitive way to frame risk assessments.) To cite one topical example, nanotechnology in food will not start its public and policy life with a historically blank canvas but will be defined as a ‘novel food’ under a proposal for renewing the Novel Foods regulation. (The Novel Foods regulation came into existence in the 1990’s with foods containing or consisting of GMO’s in mind). Recent proposals for renewing regulation on food additives (after a first reading of the European Commission’s proposal in the European Parliament in April 2009) have made this the first piece of regulation to include explicit reference to nanotechnology. Public debate that articulates particular interests and scientific debate on the validity of analogical approaches to nanotechnologies will inevitably continue to shape the ways in which nanotechnologies are addressed in regulation and policy . But the governance of the technology, as well as debate around it, has to be seen within its historical context. How did stakeholders behave in previous cases, and what can we learn from these cases with regard to nanotechnology? One answer to this question might point to a learning process around the governance of new technologies, and the development of a consensus that early involvement of both stakeholders and the broader public is of the utmost importance. The European Commission has responded to this with its adoption of a European strategy and action plan on nanotechnologies, which addresses topics from research needs to regulatory responses and ethical issues to the need for international dialogue. This strategy above all emphasises the ‘safe, integrated and responsible’ development of nanosciences and nanotechnologies – something which the DEEPEN consortium (see chapter 2 and 3) has drawn upon in articulating how ‘responsible development’ might take its course within deliberative fora. Public Debate = Real Change And, public discussions MUST involve cost-benefit analysis and risk planning – key to DIRECTLY affect legislative change on Nanotechnology Schomberg 2k10 (“Introduction: Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies Options for Framing Public Policy,” pg online @ http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/understanding-public-debate-onnanotechnologies_en.pdf //um-ef) Deliberative approaches to nanotechnology should not be reduced to a public debate exercise. While such debate is important, the responsible development of nanosciences and technologies also requires deliberative approaches to the technology assessment mechanisms of the policy process ( such as cost-benefit analysis, foresight exercises and risk assessments) . Scientific and public controversies often remain inconclusive when there is a lack of consensus on the normative (ethical) basis of such assessment mechanisms. In the development of nanotechnologies, there is not yet a shared understanding of how we might define the acceptability of possible risks, or of how we would weigh them against possible benefits. Moreover, in the context of scientific uncertainty and production of knowledge by a range of different actors, we need knowledge assessment mechanisms which will assess the quality of available knowledge for the policy process. We are currently forced to act upon developments while at the same time being uncertain about the quality and comprehensiveness of the available scientific knowledge and the status of public consensus. A deliberative approach to the policy-making process would complement and connect with deliberative mechanisms outside policy (on which, notably, the FRAMINGNANO consortium focused, see chapter 4). The outcomes of ongoing knowledge assessment (8) should feed into other assessment mechanisms and into deliberation on the acceptability of risk, the choice of regulatory frameworks or the measures taken under those frameworks. Knowledge assessment following the result of foresight exercises would then be important tools in setting out arguments for the necessity and nature of future legislative actions . Public Debate k Nano And, public understanding leads to ACTUAL nanotech use and development Corley et al 2k12 (Elizabeth A. Corley, Youngjae Kim, and Dietram A. Scheufele, Elizabeth A. Corley is Lincoln Professor of Public Policy, Ethics & Emerging Technologies, Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University. Youngjae Kim is Research Associate, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University. Dietram A. Scheufele is John E. Ross Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin- Madison, “Public Challenges Of Nanotechnology Regulation,” pg online @ www.cspo.org/library/author?action=getfile&file=639&section=lib //um-ef) The first significant challenge for nanoregulators and policymakers is that the public are generally supportive of nanotechnology, but they feel uncertain about whether existing regulations are sufficient . Uncertainty about regulations could lead to future public rejection of nanotechnology if consumers feel that risks are high and unchecked by regulations. In addition, this public uncertainty about nanoregulations could result in the public shying away from some existing commercial nanotechnology products that are relatively safe and have low risk levels. Experts k Public And, relying on EXPERTS critical for public acceptance of nanotech Corley et al 2k12 (Elizabeth A. Corley, Youngjae Kim, and Dietram A. Scheufele, Elizabeth A. Corley is Lincoln Professor of Public Policy, Ethics & Emerging Technologies, Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University. Youngjae Kim is Research Associate, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University. Dietram A. Scheufele is John E. Ross Professor, Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin- Madison, “Public Challenges Of Nanotechnology Regulation,” pg online @ www.cspo.org/library/author?action=getfile&file=639&section=lib //um-ef) Using empirical research on public and scientist perceptions about nanotechnology, five important public challenges facing regulators and policymakers for nanotechnology regulation have been identified in this article. Even though the public are in favor of nanotechnology, their knowledge levels about the technology are relatively low, and there are troubling disparities among education groups. Moreover, the public are still uncertain about whether existing regulations are sufficient to protect them from nanotechnology risks. One way to help the public understand more about nanotechnology risks and regulations is to encourage trusted experts to engage in public communication about nanotechnology. So far, trusted experts, such as university scientists and medical doctors, have been slow to engage the public in a dialogue about nanotechnology. Increasing the frequency of this public communication about scientific risks and regulation could not only increase public knowledge about nanotechnology, but also help the public better understand the role of governmental regulations in protecting them from nanotechnology risks. Certainly it continues to be important for policymakers to prioritize nanoregulation in areas where scientific risks are high and current regulations are inadequate. Given the complexity of regulating nanotechnology, federal agencies will not be able to formulate and implement formal policies in all areas at the same time. Therefore, prioritizing nanotechnology areas where existing regulations are less likely to protect the public from risks, such as human enhancement, privacy, and medicine, will be an important strategic policy move for federal agencies. Lastly, governmental agencies need to use flexible, innovative, and responsive policy tools to develop new regulations for emerging technologies. The development of regulations for these technologies (for example, nanotechnology) can be particularly challenging for traditional, slow-moving regulatory frameworks, especially in cases where rapid technological development is coupled with significant scientific uncertainty. Technical Language k Public And, the language we use on Nanotech has a DIRECT influence on public knowledge Hodge 2k13 (Graeme A. Hodge1, Andrew D. Maynard2 and Diana M. Bowman3,* 1Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Faculty of Law, Clayton Campus, Monash University 3800 Victoria, Australia: Email: Graeme.Hodge@monash.edu. 2Risk Science Center and Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; Email: maynarda@umich.edu. 3Risk Science Centre and Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Healthpg online @ http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/05/02/scipol.sct029.abstract //um-ef) Nanotechnology has engendered much debate. This article asks how we can best approach nanotechnology regulation and aims to separate out the risk rhetoric from the regulatory realities. It argues that any discussion of nanotechnology regulation requires us to traverse three fundamentally distinct languages: the language of ‘nanotechnology’ as a public policy phenomenon; the language of ‘nanotechnologies’ as a set of multiple scientific frontiers; and the language of regulation. These three languages co-exist and have a profound influence in framing policy debates. Nanotechnology needs to be understood as a brand as well as in terms of scientific frontiers. This article suggests that society now confronts a number of pressing regulatory challenges. These include: moving past the language game; filling scientific knowledge gaps; strengthening standards; articulating regulatory gaps; finding the right risk–reward balance; regulating in an optimum manner; and achieving appropriate transparency. Advantages Brain Drain Advantage 1AC Brain Drain Scenario Brain Drain now due to lack of opportunities, corruption – plan is key to solve Arenas 12 – Journalist for the Nebraska Mosaic (Gabriel Medina, “Flip side of Mexican Immigration: Brain Drain”, Nebraska Mosaic, 4/20/2012, http://cojmc.unl.edu/mosaic/2012/04/20/1642)//BD While most news of Mexicans making their way north focuses on people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, these three represent what’s happening at the other end of that scale. They are part of a brain drain that is robbing Mexico of its well-educated men and women.¶ Two reasons exist for this brain drain, according to Juan Ramón de la Fuente, former chancellor of the Mexican National Autonomous University: the lack of job opportunities in Mexico and Mexico’s high level of insecurity.¶ Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, an Argentinean professor and Hispanic immigration expert at New York University, spoke recently at UNL and offered additional reasons for this brain drain.¶ SuarezOrozco, who holds a doctorate in anthropology, said highly educated Mexicans want better working conditions. They want jobs in which they have better research opportunities and labs, as well as better salaries and opportunities to get specialized scholarships and fellowships.¶ The number of Mexican-born professionals who live in the U.S. doubled between 1997 and 2007, from 259,000 to 552,000, an annual average growth rate of 11 percent. During that same period, the number of people in “Never before in the history of the United States have so many highly educated immigrants arrived into our country in such high numbers,” Suarez Orozco said. “Today a quarter of all physicians in our country are immigrant-born, 40 percent of all the engineers in the United States are foreign, a third of all the folk with doctorates in the United States are foreign-born.”¶ Mexico’s supply of educated people is growing five times faster than the population, but job opportunities for professionals are not expanding as fast, according to the Migration Policy Institute. One reason this is Mexico who earned a bachelor’s degree grew only 6 percent.¶ happening is because Mexico’s government and the private sector are not creating enough high skilled jobs.¶ To stop this brain drain the Mexican government and the private sector need to create more high-skilled jobs ; they have to hire people based on their credentials and not on friendship or nepotism; they have to raise the salaries of highly educated people and they have to keep on fighting against organized crime Mexican scientists aren’t able to enter Nano-Workforce – forcing brain drain overseas Foladori and Lau 2k7 (ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Zacatecas, México, “Nanotechnologies in Latin America,” pg online @ http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Manuskripte_81.pdf //um-ef) The political-business interests are present in the creation of high technology industrial parks. The idea is to provide the infrastructure and general conditions to allow national and transnational enterprises to open their doors, supported by research centers on high technology. The scientific and technological parks are centers to foster innovation. The success of these parks in México depends on reversing the exodus of manufacturing enterprises, which has been affecting the economy for the past decade. Costs have declined worldwide due to several technical advances in telecommunications, storage systems, transportation and the reduction of regulations. This has encouraged U.S.-based enterprises to move to South-East Asia. That trend includes the mobility of qualified personnel and most activities related to prototype design and, sometimes, the entire production process. At the same time, China, Thailand and Singapore have increased the production share of the manufacturing industry within their Gross National Product (“GNP”), while that share has decreased in the U.S. and México (Hung & León, 2005). This tendency contradicts the creation of R&D industrial parks and puts them at risk. Moreover , these circumstances add more pressure to scientists and technicians who, due to the lack of opportunities, migrate to other countries. The lack of scientific training at the basic education, high school and university levels reduces the possibility of obtaining nanotechnology-related positions. A basic but comprehensive training in science and math is essential to encourage several countries to jump from underdevelopment to development (e.g., South Korea), a possibility that México is not realizing4 ***1AC Brain drain collapses Mexico’s economy and prevents competitiveness – Mexican Technology Professionals are Critical Arenas 12 – journalist (Gabriel, “Flip Side of Mexican Immigration: Brain Drain,” University of Nebraska, 4/20/12, http://cojmc.unl.edu/mosaic/2012/04/20/1642/)//RH “The problem is very serious,” said Alejandro Diaz-Bautista, an economics professor at Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana, Mexico, and an expert in immigration brain drain in developing countries like Mexico is an obstacle for economic growth, modernization and the improvement of quality of life.” Diaz-Bautista said the brain drain is one reason the Mexican economy can’t compete with those of the U.S., Europe or Japan. In Mexico, between 1990 and 2000, the number of people who graduated from college increased 6.7 percent, but the economy grew only 3.5 percent, suggesting too few jobs were created. Forty-five percent of Mexicans who graduated from college that decade did not find a job and economics integration between Mexico and the United States. “This appropriate to their education level. Even though Salvador Moguel earned his master’s degree at the State University of New York and his doctorate at New Mexico State University, he wanted to go back to Mexico to work and live. The problem: He didn’t get a good offer. Moguel started living in the U.S. in the 1990s when he was working on his master’s degree. He returned to Mexico and worked for a few years. When he decided to enroll in a doctoral program, he planned to do it at Mexico’s UNAM. But they didn’t accept him. And he was surprised at the reason. “They told me they didn’t think I could be a good researcher because I was almost 30,” he said. So he earned his doctorate in the U.S., then returned to Mexico to look for a job. When he didn’t get one, he once again returned to the U.S. to teach and conduct research. “There are no equal opportunities in Mexico, like there is in the U.S.,” he said. “Your credentials are not enough for you to get a good job.” Between 1997 and 2007, the presence of Mexican professionals working in foreign countries grew 153 percent , from 411,000 to 1.4 million people, according to the Mexican Public Education Ministry. About 5 million Mexicans with more education than the average Mexican—8.6 years in school—decided to come to live in the U.S. in those years. UNL economics Professor Hendrik Van den Berg said this trend, which is worldwide, is likely to continue or even increase: Educated people from undeveloped countries will keep on migrating to developed countries to get a better life. “The only way to stop this brain drain is to have a booming Mexican economy,” he said. “That’s what Brazil has been able to do. Their economy is going well, and I know quite a number of Brazilians that were highly educated and were here illegally. But now they are back in Brazil.” According to the MPI, the Department of Homeland Security issued 300,000 temporary working visas to highly skilled Mexicans in 2009 alone. This brain drain may worry the Mexican government, but it invests only about $3,400 toward the education of each Mexican student enrolled in public institutions of higher learning, an amount insufficient to fully educate and train the next generation. This migration of qualified people has cost Mexico approximately $7 billion according to the country’s Public Education Ministry. “The Mexican government and the universities Government officials respond that Mexico is a developing country, that it lacks the necessary funds. don’t pay good salaries to professors with doctorates,” Calzada said. “The problem is that their budget is not big enough to do good scientific research.” However, other developing countries—such as Brazil and India—are finding ways to invest more money in education, with the result that they are retaining more of their human capital. “The Mexican government needs to create long-term policies that stimulate the private sector, so they hire or repatriate Mexican-educated individuals that work in foreign countries,” Juan Ramon de la Fuente, former chancellor of the Mexican National Autonomous University, said last June during a conference in Madrid titled “Redefining the Brain Drain.” De la Fuente, currently president of the International Association of Universities, said the brain drain has occurred for two reasons: People can’t find enough job opportunities and Mexico’s high level of insecurity. By March 2011, nearly 37 percent of the unemployed in Mexico had at least a high school education, according to the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information Technology. This suggests that neither the private nor the public sectors in Mexico are creating enough jobs for highly educated and skilled people. “These people represent a tremendous potential for Mexico’s future economic development,” said Rodolfo Tuirán, Mexico’s education undersecretary and a demographic expert. “Their migration needs to be reversed, or Mexico risks its future.” US-Mexican collaboration is key—solves regulations and national projects Kay et al 09 - School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Shapira- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester (Luciano, Philip, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America”, 02/11/2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/#__ffn_sectitle//VS) Mexico is second in Latin America by published nanotechnology articles (and also by population). In 2004, there were eleven nanotechnology research groups at three universities and two research institutes, working primarily in new materials development (Malsch 2004); in 2007, an external European mission identified more than a dozen institutions with active nanotechnology research programs, again with a strong presence in nanomaterials (NanoforumEULA 2007). A few companies are also commercializing nanotechnology in Mexico, although academic–industry relationships are reported as weak (Malsch 2004). An important aspect for Mexico is the link maintained with the US in terms of cooperation for high-technology development which, jointly with the geographic proximity to that country, are hoped to offer Mexico an advantage for future commercialization of nanotechnology compared with other countries of Latin America. There are already some initiatives for supplying the semiconductor and other high-tech industries. For example, the project for the Silicon Border Development Science Park started in 2006 with the goal of becoming the first high- tech park in Latin America that is specialized at the nanoscale (Foladori and Zayago2007). However, Mexico does not have a national program for developing these technologies. Indeed, until 2005 there was no federal program financing, organizing, or regulating nanotechnology (Foladori2006). Additionally, Mexico consistently faces challenges of retaining its most highly talented researchers in the face of superior research conditions and salaries in the US. Uniq: Mexico S&T Collapsing Current S&T programs fail – brain drain, high importation of technology, divide between research and industry, lack of tax exemptions Rosen 11 – Science Journalist, MSc in science communication at Imperial College London (Cecelia, “Rebuilding Mexico’s science and technology capacity”, SciDev.net, 5/30/11, http://www.scidev.net/global/migration/feature/rebuilding-mexico-sscience-and-technology-capacity-1.html)//BD [MEXICO CITY] Despite being one of the richest countries in Latin America, Mexico has made little headway in developing its own science and technology (S&T) programmes in recent years — and now its dependency on imported technology is reaching a critical level.¶ According to Arturo Menchaca-Rocha, president of the Mexican Academy of Sciences, purchases of imported high-technology goods increased ten-fold over the past decade, royalty payments for technology went up by a factor of five — and royalties from home-grown Mexican technologies have halved.¶ "Today, Mexico buys 94 per cent of its technology — only six per cent is the result of our own inventions," Menchaca-Rocha tells SciDev.Net.¶ Many of the reasons are well known. Mexico is grappling with an increasing brain drain of scientists, which may have cost the country more than US$3 million last year, estimates Menchaca-Rocha. Training new scientists takes time and only one in 10,000 of the population has a PhD.¶ Other problems include small-scale, and often marginal or isolated, production of local technology, and a marked division between academia and industry — despite initiatives such as innovation offices at public universities and tax incentives for companies.¶ Poor integration of basic research and industry is one of the main reasons for turning to imported technologies.¶ When measured by patent production and inventive capacity, Mexico ranks last among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.¶ "Science is not contributing to the development of the country — that's our biggest concern. The scientific and technological system was not designed to serve society," says Sergio Ulloa, former president of the Mexican Association of Directors of Applied Research and Technological Development (ADIAT).¶ The lack of effective and long-term associations between academia and the private sector is the most critical problem to address in the short term, he says.¶ In late 2009, the Science and Technological Consultative Forum (FCCyT) — an independent body that advises the government on S&T issues — and ten other organisations formed the Vincula group (vincula means 'connections' in Spanish), also known as the G11, to promote S&T on behalf of the 'triple helix': academia, government and industry. It is the first time the different sectors have worked together in this way. ¶ "We now see businesspeople defending basic research and researchers defending innovation," says Juan Pedro Laclette, head of the group. "With this initiative, agreed by everyone, we have made a big change."¶ ADIAT, which is part of the G11, recently launched a national programme to train specialists to transfer technology from research centres and universities to industry. Some 600 specialists have been trained since October and will start working at public and private institutions next year.¶ The government's main technology initiative was a now-defunct programme of tax exemptions, set up in 2002 by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) to stimulate research and innovation through tax exemptions to companies investing in Mexican R&D. ¶ The council cancelled the US$1.3 billion programme in January 2009 after criticism that activities were not necessarily 'research', and that big companies were using it for tax avoidance.¶ Three new programmes to support different innovation stages in companies, particularly small- and medium- sized firms, were established, but many businesspeople and some academics want the government to restore tax exemptions.¶ José Enrique Villa Rivera, who took over as director of CONACYT in March, said in a meeting with parliamentarians in early April he would revive the tax exemption scheme under a new programme, without providing details of how it would work. ¶ Avelino Cortizo, head of research, innovation and technological development at the Mexican Employers' Confederation (Coparmex), has joined the call by some G11 members to restore the programme, calling its cancellation an "irresponsible decision".¶ "Its disappearance puts Mexico at a disadvantage against other countries with fiscal instruments and promotion of technological development," says Cortizo.¶ Meanwhile Coparmex is working on setting up the country's first innovation network and communication platform, to bring together 3,500 companies with national and foreign research centres during its first phase. ¶ Uniq: S&T Critical And, S&T is at CRITICAL levels – Government action is key WashingtonExec 4/8 (“INSA Releases Latest White Paper on Necessity of Science and Technology Investments,” pg online @ The Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) recently released its latest white paper, Emerging Science and Technologies: Securing the Nation through Discovery and Innovation. The paper, authored by the INSA Technology and Innovation Council, makes a case for the investment of science and technology saying in its Executive Summary, investment is “integral to the economic growth and development as well as national security.” The paper cites the erosion of U.S. leadership in science and technology (S&T) to the Asian S&T investment and the results of the European effort to boost its relative competitiveness in research and development (R&D), innovation and high technology. “The white paper offers a comprehensive look across the S&T community and provides Union’s (EU) provocative ideas for future research,” said Joseph DeTrani, INSA’s president ambassador. “I applaud our Council on Technology and Innovation for taking on this important task. The U.S. Intelligence Community is the best in the world and continued emphasis on basic research, even in tough budget times, will ensure our intelligence agencies are able to protect our nation and enhance our global leadership in the future.” The white paper brings to light the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) identification of the five capability gaps that may enable the U.S. to better collect and assess intelligence. The idea is to maintain an advantage over our adversaries. Those five capability gaps include: bio-inspired computing architectures energy harvesting advanced materials for computing human-inspired big data selfprotecting data The authors of the paper used ODNI’s five high-priority technological needs, as an outline for year’s white paper. The five highpriority technological needs include the following: Technical Collection, Communication and Sharing Intelligence, Human Intelligence (HUMINT)-Collection and Operations, Intelligence and Analysis, Protection of the Intelligence Enterprise. Dr. Allan Sonsteby, INSA Technology and Innovation Council white paper lead and Associate Director of the Applied Research Laboratory at Penn State University, said, “The INSA Technology and Innovation Council’s white paper identifies areas for more detailed focus in S&T and will serve as a basis for government and industry leaders addressing the future development of and investment in our nation’s security. The analysis, data and recommendations included in this paper are not meant to be all-inclusive or prioritized, but serve as a catalyst for government and industry discussion of S&T investments for the IC’s future.” Uniq: Brain Drain High Brain drain happening now – insufficient employment – reduces economic growth Guerrero and Bolay 5 – Ph.D Cum Laude in Political Sciences , independent consultant, Ph.D in Political Sciences, Director of Cooperation at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Gabriela and Jean-Claude, Enhancing development through knowledge circulation: a different view of the migration of highly skilled Mexicans,” Global Commission on International Migration, Nov 2005, http://www.migrationdevelopment.org/fileadmin/data/resources/brain_drain/resear ch_papers/GMP_51_english_01.pdf)//RH In the last decade, and coinciding with an intensification of the globalisation debate, the brain drain issue was revived within research and political discussion, and this highlighted the negative effects for developing countries and its impact on economic progress. As such, the majority of the literature describes brain drain as flows of HRST in one direction: from the periphery to the centre (Salt, 1997; Carrington and Detragiache, 1998; Cervantes and Guellec, 2002), and emphasizes the losses to countries of origin because of the scarcity of highly skilled workers (Lowell, 2003) and an inverse transfer of technology (Salt, 1997). These discussions culminated in a collection of studies by the International Labour Organization (ILO) which, although the authors agreed that international migration can provide important benefits to developing countries, concluded that in overall terms, brain drain definitively reduces economic growth in the South due to the loss in education, investment and the reduction in human capital (Lowell and Findlay, 2001; Lowell, Findlay and Stewart, 2004). In the case of Mexico, there has been an increase in the number of students, scientists and highly skilled professionals emigrating to the North over the last few years. This increase is partly due to the traditional internationalisation of science (Didou, 2004), but it is also a result of Mexico’s inability to generate sufficient employment, especially for its highly skilled workers (La Jornada, 30/06/05). Despite this situation, the issue has not been given the importance that it deserves and the only interest shown has been sporadic and unsystematic, which has resulted in a dearth of literature on the dynamics and effects of Mexican HRST migrations. However, there are a number of theoretical articles and empirical studies that are worthy of mention. In these contributions, there is a predominance of the traditional paradigm that considers the movement of HRST as a drain and they adopt a nationalistic stance, denouncing the North’s “raid” of Southern brains and the resulting “decapitalization” of developing countries to the benefit of the North. Following these lines, Licea de Arenas (2004) affirms that the intellectual capital of countries such as Mexico will not grow as long as industrialized countries continue to attract their HRST, a situation which increases the North’s productivity at the South’s expense. The concept of an internal brain drain (Castaños-Lomnitz [coord.] 2004) appears in the literature and refers to those highly qualified individuals (Mexicans), who return to their country of origin after graduating from a foreign university or after a period working at a foreign research centre, but who abandon their academic career in pursuit of other professional activities. In Mexico, this phenomenon has become increasingly widespread because of the difficult conditions confronted by career academics, fundamentally due to the scarcity of positions, infrastructure and resources. Temporary brain drain (Félix, 2003) refers to student assistants and academics involved in “technical” scientific work at foreign research centres and who provide raw data (information, symbols and concepts for subsequent application) to laboratory directors or projects through their research. These individuals are becoming symbolic analysts, and they are helping to create a new working class within the knowledge economy. According to Félix (2003) the temporary brain drain has a greater impact on the South than the permanent brain drain. In other cases, the terms brain waste (Salt, 1997), underemployment (Licea de Arenas, 2004) or over-education (Pecoraro, 2004) are used to describe those HRST expatriates from the South whose knowledge is not used in their countries of destination since they are employed in jobs below the level of their education, skills or experience, or even because they are excluded from the labour market. This scenario is becoming increasingly common, and it highlights the paradoxical situation whereby the countries of origin lose human resources of great value while the destination countries often fail to take advantage of such capital (Riaño, 2003). Efforts to stop brain drain have failed – lack of opportunities and resources in Mexico Guerrero and Bolay 5 – Ph.D Cum Laude in Political Sciences , independent consultant, Ph.D in Political Sciences, Director of Cooperation at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Gabriela and Jean-Claude, Enhancing development through knowledge circulation: a different view of the migration of highly skilled Mexicans,” Global Commission on International Migration, Nov 2005, http://www.migrationdevelopment.org/fileadmin/data/resources/brain_drain/resear ch_papers/GMP_51_english_01.pdf)//RH 1,400 Mexican researchers were repatriated in the period between 1991 and 1997 required an investment of approximately 126. 6 million pesos during these seven years (approximately US $11. 5 million). Despite the elevated cost, the Repatriation Programme has not been able to effectively implement its objectives because of the lack of opportunities in Mexico for scientists wishing to repatriate and form part of a research centre. Furthermore, the laboratories, equipment and other materials that are needed to guarantee the continuity of the research projects of repatriated scientists are usually insufficient. In this respect, the Mexican academic sector will unquestionably find itself left behind because of insufficient government support and the lack of alternatives in Mexico. This situation could, however, be improved if there were stronger links between the private and academic sectors. In overall terms, the Repatriation Programme does not have the capacity to redress the international imbalances that attract the highly qualified élite towards the centres of major scientific and technological advancements in the industrialized world (CastañosLomnitz, Rodríguez-Sala According to Conacyt, approximately (an annual average of 200), and this and Herrera, 2004). Brain drain is causing massive migration of professionals from Latin America – ILO data proves Guerrero and Bolay 5 – Ph.D Cum Laude in Political Sciences , independent consultant, Ph.D in Political Sciences, Director of Cooperation at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Gabriela and Jean-Claude, Enhancing development through knowledge circulation: a different view of the migration of highly skilled Mexicans,” Global Commission on International Migration, Nov 2005, http://www.migrationdevelopment.org/fileadmin/data/resources/brain_drain/resear ch_papers/GMP_51_english_01.pdf)//RH two thirds of tertiary level students from the countries of the South remain in the host countries of the North once they have completed their studies. According to data from the ILO [International Labour Organization], developing countries lose between 10% and 30% of their HRST to industrialized countries (Lowell and Findlay, 2001), and in some regions of the world the outflow is considerably higher. For example, it is estimated that nearly 75% of all individuals from Africa, 50% of those from Asia and 47% of those from Latin America who migrate to industrialized countries possess tertiary qualifications. Another estimate indicates that at least 400,000 scientists and engineers from developing countries are carrying out research and development activities in industrialized countries, compared to approximately 1.2 million involved in such activities in their countries of origin (Meyer and Brown, 1999). The implication here is that a third of the South’s scientists and engineers have expatriated to the North. But what, we should ask, is the real magnitude of the brain drain? In general terms, Barré et al. (2003) estimate that about Mexico brain drain empirically exists – long-term study proves Guerrero and Bolay 5 – Ph.D Cum Laude in Political Sciences , independent consultant, Ph.D in Political Sciences, Director of Cooperation at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Gabriela and Jean-Claude, Enhancing development through knowledge circulation: a different view of the migration of highly skilled Mexicans,” Global Commission on International Migration, Nov 2005, http://www.migrationdevelopment.org/fileadmin/data/resources/brain_drain/resear ch_papers/GMP_51_english_01.pdf)//RH Another study (Licea de Arenas, 2004) studies the highly skilled during the period from 1980 to 1998, and observes that 1,678 students receive their Ph. D. s from universities in the United States. Of these only slightly more than 20% (only 363) returned to the SNI to explicitly seek recognition of their scientific activities. The author refers to those graduates who do not become part of the Mexican scientific community, and who total nearly 80%, as “cerebros fugados” or brain escapees. Uniq: Brain Drain Now – Collapse Econ Current nanotech programs cause brain drain and make economic collapse inevitable – plan is key to retain jobs in Mexico Torres and Wittchen 9 (Mario Alberto Arauz Torres and Urszula Wittchen, “Brain Drain across the Globe: Country Case Studies,” 2009, p. 13-16 Mexico¶ There are well known images of Mexicans swimming across the Rio Grande, jumping the fence at US-Mexican border, dying in enclosed railroad box cars, meeting death in the hot Arizona desert. Such incidents confronted with racialized immigration policies demand immigration reform (Loyd and Andrew, 2007) but for many years, there Mexican immigrants - wealthy has also been a constant flood of other types of and well educated professionals or students and tourists who decide to stay in the US. “Nowadays, Americans are benefiting from both gardeners and engineers coming to the United States” - says Jorge Dominguez, professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University - “that’s a significant shift in migration patterns” (UPI, 2008). It is calculated that around 6,000 Mexican professionals with PhDs work outside the country. However, between 1991 and 2000, over 2,000 Mexicans with doctorates residing abroad agreed to return to Mexico. They were offered one year of salary support from Mexico’s Presidential Fund for Retention, what cost the Mexican federal government US$56 million (Clemens, 2009). ¶ In 1994, Mexico began its economic integration with the United States and Canada within the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 2006, Mexicans living abroad, primarily in the United States and Canada, sent an astonishing $20 billion to their home country. These remittances became the largest source of foreign revenues, fuelling the nation’s trade surplus. The case of Mexico is exceptional in terms of the impact of remittances on the educational choices of “those remaining behind” (TRB). People from rural parts of Mexico planning to migrate to the USA have little incentive to invest in education, as Mexicans generally get unskilled jobs there. Furthermore McKenzie and Rapoport (2006) show that the prospect of emigrating from Mexico for low-skill but high paying jobs in the United States might even to diminish investment in education in Mexico. They investigated households supported by migrant family members and found that boys from these families were 22% less likely to complete junior high school (for both boys and girls the investigation result was 15%). Mexican families have to make a principal choice between investing in schooling in Mexico, and investing in arrangements for migration to unskilled work abroad. The latter option is perceived as a short-term and quicker refunding investment.¶ Close to 17% of migrants arriving in the US during the 1980s had at least a college degree - 10.4% had bachelor’s and 6.5% had a graduate degree; however, the same indices for Mexican migrants are only 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively (Özden, 2005). Since it is relatively easy for migrants from Mexico to enter the US whether illegally or via family preferences, they make up the bulk of migrants at the low end of the education spectrum, concludes Özden. (ibid.) ¶ There have been two waves in the exodus of Mexican professionals. First in 1982–1986, the time of economic crisis when, after the devaluation of the peso, the economy collapsed and many middle class Mexican families moved to the United States, Canada, and Spain. Second, during the last two years of Vicente Fox’s administration, 2004–2006, when employment opportunities for professionals stagnated. In 2002, about 12% of Mexico’s labour force resided in the US, and 30% of Mexicans with PhDs. Additionally, 79% of all science students that the Mexican government had funded to study in the USA (CONACYT programs) never returned to work in Mexico (Vitela, 2002). The emigration of the best and the brightest of Mexicans to the USA is caused by the present and worsening economic crisis in Mexico. In 2004, 684,000 Mexicans with university degrees were unemployed (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica - INEGI).¶ NAFTA’s first decade (1994–2004) provided Mexico, among others, with educational opportunities for its students abroad but also resulted in brain drain. Since Mexicans become better educated, many are also sought by foreign companies. Australia, for example, is in such a need of certain professionals (like accountants and nurses), that it offers to “sponsor” Mexican professionals for one year, paying their expenses, expecting that during that time they will decide to remain abroad. Canadian universities send recruiters to the top private Mexican colleges to lure full-tuition paying students to Canada’s top schools. Japan, which depends on Mexico for one-third of all its organic products, sponsors fairs to attract Mexican agricultural professionals. Ireland sponsors job fairs for Mexican professionals, stating that proficiency in English is the only requirement to get a job. As result of these campaigns, thousands of Mexican professionals and graduate degree holders emigrated between 2005 and 2009, mainly to these countries, but also to France and Germany. There are worries that this “continuing emigration of intellectual capital, threatens Mexico’s prospects for economic development” (Nevaer, 2007).¶ The number of Mexican immigrants leaving college campuses increases, including the alumni of prestigious Monterrey Institute of Technology, known as “Mexico’s MIT”. The press claims that well-educated immigrants exile themselves from a country that has failed to lower the income and opportunity gap between it and its wealthy northern neighbour, or provide basic security for its population (Corchado, 2008). According to the International Organization for Migration, which studied the exodus of educated Mexicans to the United States, an estimated 14,000 of the 19,000 Mexicans with doctorates live in the US, many in north Texas. The number of Mexicans making leaving for the United States recently doubled in 2005 - from 275,000 emigrating annually ten years ago, to an estimated 500,000 a year nowadays - and this trend continues. Nearly half of them are specialists or professionals, who immigrate legally through special work visas. The Mexican government makes efforts to strengthening ties with Mexican expatriates, as part of the Mexicans Abroad Program, and the new Red de Talentos (Network of Talents), which targets Mexican entrepreneurs. The idea is to encourage investment in Mexico to create jobs there, and maybe to bring some of them back. But there are also mental barriers, difficult to surmount. A good exemplification of the growing unwillingness and rising difficulties with making the decision to return among migrants who have successfully spent a long time abroad can be found in the words of the Mexican potential expat in the US, who first “believed that if only there were a true democracy in Mexico, if only there were a more open economy, if only Mexico were more closely linked to the United States through a free trade agreement, if only there were more jobs and no peso crises - then Mexican workers would stay home to raise their families and build their country rather than making the journey to the US”. But now, when many of these expectations have become a reality, the old “if onlys” have been replaced by new ones: “If only jobs in Mexico paid better, if only free trade brought more benefits, if only the political parties weren’t always fighting, if only there weren’t so many drug killings. And if only there wasn’t such a demand in the United States for young, ambitious students like them” (Corchado, 2008). Uniq: Brain Drain High Brain Drain in Mexico now – shift in migration patterns, remittances, low education investment, weak Mexican economy Torres and Wittchen 09 – Researchers at Adam Mickiewicz University working on Erasmus Mundus projects (Mario Alberto and Urszula, “Brain Drain across the Globe: Country Case Studies”, Mundus project, 2009, http://pre.docdat.com/docs/index-114593.html)//BD There are well known images of Mexicans swimming across the Rio Grande, jumping the fence at US-Mexican border, dying in enclosed railroad box cars, meeting death in the hot Arizona desert. Such incidents confronted with racialized immigration policies demand immigration reform there has also been a constant flood of other types of Mexican immigrants - wealthy and well educated professionals or students and tourists who decide to stay in the US. “Nowadays, Americans are benefiting from both gardeners and engineers coming to the United States” - says Jorge Dominguez, professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University “that’s a significant shift in migration patterns” (UPI, 2008). It is calculated that around 6,000 Mexican professionals with PhDs work outside the country. However, between 1991 and 2000, over 2,000 Mexicans with doctorates residing abroad agreed to return to Mexico. They were offered one year of salary support from Mexico’s Presidential Fund for Retention, what cost the Mexican federal government US$56 million (Clemens, 2009). ¶ In 1994, Mexico began its economic integration with the United States and Canada within the North American FreeTrade Agreement (NAFTA). In 2006, Mexicans living abroad, primarily in the United States and Canada, sent an astonishing $20 billion to their home country. These remittances became the largest source of foreign revenues, fuelling the nation’s trade surplus. The case of Mexico is exceptional in terms of the impact of remittances on the educational choices of “those remaining behind” (TRB). (Loyd and Andrew, 2007) But for many years, People from rural parts of Mexico planning to migrate to the USA have little incentive to invest in education, as Mexicans generally get unskilled jobs there. Furthermore McKenzie and Rapoport (2006) show that the prospect of emigrating from Mexico for lowskill but high paying jobs in the United States might even to diminish investment in education in Mexico. They investigated households supported by migrant family members and found that boys from these families were 22% less likely to complete junior high school (for both boys and girls the investigation result was 15%). Mexican families have to make a principal choice between investing in schooling in Mexico, and investing in arrangements for migration to unskilled work abroad. The latter option is perceived as a shortterm and quicker refunding investment.¶ Close to 17% of migrants arriving in the US during the 1980s had at least a college degree - 10.4% had bachelor’s and 6.5% had a graduate degree; however, the same indices for Mexican migrants are only 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively (Özden, 2005). Since it is relatively easy for migrants from Mexico to enter the US whether illegally or via family preferences, they make up the bulk of migrants at the low end of the education spectrum, concludes Özden. (ibid.)¶ There have been two waves in the exodus of Mexican professionals. First in 1982–1986, the time of economic crisis when, after the devaluation of the peso, the economy collapsed and many middle class Mexican families moved to the United States, Canada, and Spain. Second, during the last two years of Vicente Fox’s administration, 2004–2006, when employment opportunities for professionals stagnated. In 2002, about 12% of Mexico’s labour force resided in the US, and 30% of Mexicans with PhDs. Additionally, 79% of all science students that the Mexican government had funded to study in the USA (CONACYT programs) never returned to work in Mexico (Vitela, 2002). The emigration of the best and the brightest of Mexicans to the USA is caused by the present and worsening economic crisis in Mexico. In 2004, 684,000 Mexicans with university degrees were unemployed (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica INEGI).¶ NAFTA’s first decade (1994–2004) provided Mexico, among others, with educational opportunities for its students abroad but also resulted in brain drain. Since Mexicans become better educated, many are also sought by foreign companies. Australia, for example, is in such a need of certain professionals (like accountants and nurses), that it offers to “sponsor” Mexican professionals for one year, paying their expenses, expecting that during that time they will decide to remain abroad. Canadian universities send recruiters to the top private Mexican colleges to lure full-tuition paying students to Canada’s top schools. Japan, which depends on Mexico for one-third of all its organic products, sponsors fairs to attract Mexican agricultural professionals. Ireland sponsors job fairs for As result of these campaigns, thousands of Mexican professionals and graduate degree holders emigrated between 2005 and 2009, mainly to these countries, but also to France and Germany. There are worries that this “continuing emigration of intellectual capital, Mexican professionals, stating that proficiency in English is the only requirement to get a job. threatens Mexico’s prospects for economic development” (Nevaer, 2007). ¶ Internals: Brain Drain Collapses Mexico Econ Brain Drain happening now and is hurting the Mexican Economy – lack of opportunities, better salaries, better security Millán 11 – Reporter for the San Diego Red (Omar, “Mexico’s brain drain to U.S. ‘a phenomenal loss’”, San Diego Red, 12/13/11, http://www.sandiegored.com/noticias/21150/Mexico-s-brain-drain-to-U-S-aphenomenal-loss/)//BD TIJUANA – The brain drain and flight of human capital of Mexicans who immigrate north is the equivalent of transferring $6 billion annually to the United States, about .5 per cent of that country’s GNP, said a leading researcher.¶ Alejandro Díaz Bautista, a member of Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology and an economics professor at the College of the Northern Border, said that the number of Mexican professionals living abroad in the last few years grew by 153 per cent, from 411,000 to 1.3 million.¶ This exodus constitutes “a phenomenal economic loss for Mexico” in the last six years, he said.¶ The investment made developing that capacity is lost, as is the possibility that these professionals’ work will contribute to Mexico’s development and economic growth, he said.¶ This migration involves talented people already educated, such as scientists, who move from Mexico to the United States or other developed countries.¶ Their departure is principally driven by the lack of opportunities, by the search for better salaries, and for greater security and a better standard of life.¶ “In today’s knowledgebased world, it’s more valuable to have these minds who can contribute to economic development than to take away the product of a gold mine or a part of a country’s oil,” Díaz Bautista said.¶ In the last few years, it’s estimated that more than five million Mexicans with an education above high school have decided to move to the United States, which shows that the programs to bring them back home have failed.¶ Developing countries such as Mexico need a public policy that tries to retain its qualified professionals by offering them better employment options and incentives to those who have left to return home to contribute to their country’s economy, he said.¶ He said that Mexico has generated 8 million professionals in the last few years, and that 900,000 of them are already in the United States. He said that at least 125,000 people with a master’s or doctorates have left the country.¶ Among the Latin American countries, Mexico’s suffers the most from this brain drain. He said that loss will have grave consequences for years to come. Internals Brain Drain = Loss Professionals Brain drain hurts countries – lack of development, lack of human capital, poor education, healthcare, and economies, loss of medical professionals Torres and Wittchen 09 – Researchers at Adam Mickiewicz University working on Erasmus Mundus projects (Mario Alberto and Urszula, “Brain Drain across the Globe: Country Case Studies”, Mundus project, 2009, http://pre.docdat.com/docs/index-114593.html)//BD Although the mobility of the skilled can be considered to be a positive phenomenon from the point of view of global innovation, on the contrary on the national level the migration of the skilled, in specific conditions, is an obstacle to local development and may even aggravate underdevelopment, depriving poor countries of their scarce human resources. The characteristic attribute of international migration of workers is its selectiveness. Countries receiving the largest numbers of immigrants have introduced selective policies favouring educated people. In effect, the world’s poorest countries are trapped in unending cycles of deprivation: the lack of education, healthcare, and economic opportunity perpetuates these same conditions for future generations. A society’s collective inability to foster positive change leads to passivity and deepening problems. The technological gap between countries at various stages of development continues to grow. Of all the talent lost from developing countries, the loss of medical professionals is perhaps of the greatest concern; this topic has been widely studied, and is commented on in other parts of this publication.¶ Many small countries, principally in the Caribbean, Central America, and Africa, suffer from very high skilled migration rates. Countries with greater demographic potential have larger populations of skilled people, so that even with a large share of skilled people in the migrant population, their share in the entire country’s skilled population is still small. On average, among countries with more than 30 million people, the brain drain of all tertiary educated people is about 5%. The largest states, such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Russia have about 3–5% of their graduates living abroad. By contrast, in sub-Saharan Africa, skilled workers only make up 4% of the total domestic workforce, but these skilled workers comprise more than 40% of people leaving the country. Beine, Docquier, and Rapaport, using recent US data on migration rates by education levels relating 150 countries, found that most countries combining low levels of human capital and low migration rates of skilled workers tend to be positively affected by the brain drain. In contrast, the brain drain has negative growth effects in countries where the migration rate of the highly educated is above 20%, and/or where the proportion of people with higher education is above 5%. An obvious and noted regularity is that countries with higher GDP per capita have lower skilled migration rates. Impacts: Brain Drain k Competitiveness Reducing the brain drain is key to Mexican Competitiveness Arenas 12 – Journalist for the Nebraska Mosaic (Gabriel Medina, “Flip side of Mexican Immigration: Brain Drain”, Nebraska Mosaic, 4/20/2012, http://cojmc.unl.edu/mosaic/2012/04/20/1642)//BD “The problem is very serious,” said Alejandro Diaz-Bautista, an economics professor at Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana, Mexico, and an expert in immigration and economics integration between Mexico and the United States. “This brain drain in developing countries like Mexico is an obstacle for economic growth, modernization and the improvement of quality of life.”¶ Diaz-Bautista said the brain drain is one reason the Mexican economy can’t compete with those of the U.S., Europe Impacts: Mexico Econ Brain drain hurts economies – loss of growth, use of government finances, doesn’t provide jobs to residents Abdelbaki 09 - associate professor of Economics at the University of Bahrain (Hisham, “Estimation of the Economic Impact of Brain Drain on the Labor Expelling Country”, International Business & Economics Research Journal, December 2009, http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/IBER/article/view/3197)//BD The emigration of human resources leads to many losses for the labor expelling country. Such losses would, without doubt, adversely affect the economic and social development programs in multiple aspects including state loss of migrants efforts in producing the desired growth whether in the planning and preparation stages or in the implementation stage and the cost opportunity represented in the financial resources spent on the migrants prior to their emigration which could have been utilized in other areas taking into account, the limited financial resources in the underdeveloped countries which are mainly labor expelling countries. Hence, the loss of such countries is doubled. They neither benefited from their labor after years of spending in education and health, nor they saved their funds and exploited in other alternatives like improving education and health services, providing job opportunities for residents, improving the innovation climate or even increasing civil production to improve the living standards of individuals. The study is devoted to analyze and measure of economic effects of labor emigration in the labor expelling economy, through taking Egypt – the largest Arab country suffering from this phenomenon- as an example and using data derived from Egyptian sources. Estimates have emphasized growing losses generated by the Egyptian labor emigration, especially by brain drain. The paper concludes that measures and policies must be adopted to stop this drain by addressing the causes of labor emigration or rather, the existing properties of the labor expelling country. Also, efforts must be made to ensure that data related to immigration is always available, updated and estimated by official bodies having human, financial and technical capabilities for this task. Impacts: Mexico Econ Lack of regulations lead to brain waste and destroys the economy – creates a cycle of economic decline Capdevila 06 – Reporter for the Inter Press Service (Gustavo, “Health: Brain Drain Hits Poor Countries Hard”, Inter Press Service News Agency, 3/23/2006, http://www.ipsnews.net/2006/03/health-brain-drain-hits-poor-countries-hard/)//BD “But there are also considerable concerns about the economic, social and health situation in the poorest countries,” she added.¶ Grondin also emphasised that migration of health workers is a global phenomenon, and is no longer “just a South-North issue.” Today migration can be North-North, as with Spanish nurses recruited in France; South-South, with doctors heading to South Africa from neighbouring countries like Kenya; or East-West, as large numbers of Polish nurses emigrate to the U.K., she explained.¶ Moreover, the loss of health professionals is not solely due to the international mobility of health professionals, but also to internal migration, because in many countries – both developed and developing – health workers move from rural to urban areas. “This internal migration compounds the drain brain effect of international migration and contributes to inequities in access to healthcare within countries,” said Grondin.¶ “Another type of loss associated with migration is what we call brain waste, which is associated with the cross-industry migration of qualified healthcare professionals who leave to work in non-health-related occupations,” she added.¶ This “brain waste” is frequently the result of stringent licensing regulations in many of the developed countries, she noted, which means that migrant health professionals in countries like Canada and the U.K. are unable to put their skills to use by exercising their professions.¶ In the meantime, there has also been a growing movement of patients to foreign countries for diagnosis and treatment, driven by differences in cost, the availability of quality specialised treatment, and the absence of waiting lists. This movement is facilitated by the increased portability of health insurance and by linguistic, cultural and geographic proximity, as in the case of patients from Bangladesh going to Thailand for treatment, said Grondin. ¶ As a means of curbing the brain drain represented by the flow of health professionals from the developing to the developed countries, some experts recommend improving remuneration and working conditions in their countries of origin. As far as Kimani is concerned, however, this supposed solution is “paradoxical.”¶ “When you take the most important resources from a poor country, you destabilise the poor country and make it very difficult to improve conditions, because to improve conditions you also require the brains which have left that country. That makes it difficult to improve the reasons or the causes of migration, and it becomes a vicious circle,” he maintained.¶ A potential solution would be for the developed countries that benefit from the migration of health professionals to compensate the developing countries with the funds and resources that were used to educate them, suggested Kimani.¶ He also proposed that health professionals who have been recruited from developed countries could remit money back to their country of origin as a form of tax that could be used to finance development programmes.¶ “When one is educated by taxpayers’ money and then disappears from his country, he no longer pays tax, and therefore he no longer contributes to the welfare of the rest of the society,” he said.¶ For his part, however, Ziba opposed this strategy, because it would entail double taxation.¶ In the meantime, there seem to be few prospects for alleviating the growing problem of health workers from the South migrating towards the industrialised nations. ¶ The United States Department of Labour has acknowledged that the country is currently facing a shortage of 125,000 nurses, and this figure could rise to as high as a million in ten years.¶ And Canada has predicted that its shortage of nurses will reach 195,000 in the year 2011 and 282,500 in 2016 Impacts: Mexico Econ (AT: Adv CPs) Eliminating brain drain key – improve economy without human capital is impossible Sriskandarajah 05 – Deputy director for the Institute for Public Policy Research (Dhananjayan, “Reassessing the Impacts of Brain Drain on Developing Countries”, Insitute for Public Policy Research, August 2005, http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=324)//BD More than a decade ago, US presidential candidate Ross Perot talked about the "giant sucking sound" made as American jobs went south of the border. These days, there is a far more significant sucking sound, one that concerns the whole world and one that could impede collective efforts to make poverty history. That new sucking sound is being made by highly skilled people leaving developing countries and heading to the developed world. ¶ The scale of this "brain drain" is staggering. As demographer B. Lindsay Lowell and geographers Allan Findlay and Emma Stewart point out in their research, nearly one in 10 tertiary-educated adults (those with some university or post-secondary schooling) born in the developing world — between a third and half of the developing world's science and technology personnel — now live in the developed world. With demand for skilled workers in the developed world unlikely to diminish soon, that sucking sound is likely to get louder. ¶ The implications for poor sending countries are stark. According to the African Capacity Building Foundation, African countries lose 20,000 skilled personnel to the developed world every year. All the developed world's efforts to increase aid to these countries may not matter if the local personnel required to implement development programs are absent. Every year there are 20,000 fewer people in Africa to deliver key public services, drive economic growth, and articulate calls for greater democracy and development. ¶ That something needs to be done about brain drain is not in question. G8 leaders have discussed the issue, the UK's Commission on Africa calls for better responses, and unions, development agencies, and other civil-society groups are demanding action. ¶ The key question is what should be done. The intuitive response — and one that is most frequently aired — is to try to plug the drain. Stemming the flows seems to make sense: the departure of these key workers hurts the sending countries, so reducing the scale of emigration should ease the pain. ¶ However, seeking to limit mobility may not be the most efficient or humane way to tackle the problem. Indeed, the very notion of "brain drain" may be outdated and simplistic, wrongly implying that the impacts of the movement of highly skilled people are always and everywhere a bad thing. ¶ Instead, what is needed are better methodologies to assess the net impacts of migration — including but not limited to the impacts of brain drain — as well as more nuanced policies that target particular problems where and when they arise. One-size-fits-all measures aimed at limiting mobility from particular regions or countries could end up inhibiting development, not to mention curbing the rights of would-be migrants. ¶ Impacts: Mexican Econ Brain drain halts economic growth Millan 11 (Omar, correspondent for San Diego Red, “Mexico’s Brain Drain to the U.S., ‘A Phenomenal Loss,’” 12/13/2011, http://www.sandiegored.com/noticias/21150/Mexico-s-brain-drain-to-U-S-a-phenomenal-loss/, AC) TIJUANA – The brain drain and flight of human capital of Mexicans who immigrate north is the equivalent of transferring $6 billion annually to the United States, about .5 per cent of that country’s GNP , said a leading researcher.¶ Alejandro Díaz Bautista, a member of Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology and an economics professor at the College of the Northern Border, said that the number of Mexican professionals living abroad in the last few years grew by 153 per cent, from This exodus constitutes “a phenomenal economic loss for Mexico” in the last six years, he made developing that capacity is lost, as is the possibility that these professionals’ work will contribute to Mexico’s development and economic growth, he said.¶ This migration involves talented people already educated, such as scientists, who move from Mexico to the United States or other developed countries.¶ Their departure is principally driven by the lack of opportunities, by the search for better salaries, and for greater security and a better standard of life.¶ “In today’s knowledge-based world, it’s more valuable to have these minds who can contribute to economic development than to take away the product of a gold mine or a part of a country’s oil,” Díaz Bautista said.¶ In the last few years, it’s estimated that more than five million Mexicans with an education above high school have decided to move to the United States, which shows that the programs to bring them back home have failed.¶ Developing countries such as Mexico need a public policy that tries to retain its qualified professionals by offering them better employment options and incentives to those who have left to return home to contribute to their country’s economy, he said.¶ He said that Mexico has 411,000 to 1.3 million.¶ said.¶ The investment generated 8 million professionals in the last few years, and that 900,000 of them are already in the United States. He said that at least 125,000 the Latin American countries, Mexico’s suffers the most from this brain drain. He said that loss will have grave consequences for years to come . people with a master’s or doctorates have left the country.¶ Among Impacts: Mexican Econ Brain drain undermines economic development Corchado 8 (Alfredo Corchado, “Mexico: An Exodus of Brainpower,” The Dallas Morning News, 11/05/2008, http://www.sfnewmexican.com/World%20News/An-exodus-of-brainpower---Alarm--in-Mexico-as-many-well-educate#.UfgUKo21GpA, AC) DALLAS — For years, Mexico's relatively weak economy has pushed thousands of low-wage workers toward the United States. Now, worries about Mexico's long-term direction are pushing highly educated workers on the same path. ¶ The brain drain threatens Mexico's prosperity, but it is creating more jobs in places such as Dallas. ¶ "We're permanently losing our best minds and best hands from both the countryside and the urban centers," said Rodolfo Tuirán, Mexico's education undersecretary and a demographic expert. "These people represent a tremendous potential for Mexico's future economic development. Their migration needs to be reversed, or Mexico risks its future." ¶ Juan G. Rolon is part of the exodus. ¶ Living in a place like Dallas never crossed his mind as he was growing up, Rolon said. But after attending an elite Mexican university, he was recruited by a Delaware-based software firm. ¶ Today, a new U.S. citizen and homeowner, he's creating jobs for north Texans as a partner in a Dallas high-tech company formed with former classmates from Mexico. He has no intention of returning to Mexico anytime soon. "I guess you can say that in some way, we're giving up on Mexico," he said. ¶ Today's Mexican immigrants come increasingly from college campuses, including Rolon's alma mater, the prestigious Tech de Monterrey, known as Mexico's MIT. ¶ Many of these well-educated immigrants say they're exiling themselves from a country that has failed to close the income and opportunity gap with its wealthy northern neighbor or provide basic security to its population. ¶ The scale of the current brain drain has not been seen since the 1982-86 economic crisis in Mexico, according to U.S. and Mexican studies. ¶ An estimated 14,000 of the 19,000 Mexicans with doctorates live in the U.S., according to the International Organization for Migration, part of a Swiss-based organization that studied the exodus of educated Mexicans to the United States, and the office of Mexico's undersecretary of education. Impacts: Econ Generic Brain drain causes economic instability – especially in developing economies Saravia et al 2004 (Nancy Gore Saravia, Professor (Adjunct) of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases) at the Yale School of Medicine. “Plumbing the Brain Drain,” August 2004, http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/608.pdf, AC) The impact of the loss of highly skilled and well-educated individuals differs for countries with different sized economies (17). Medium- sized economies in particular may be the most vulnerable since migration can subvert the possibility of achieving a critical mass of capacity to produce and innovate efficiently (17). Many of these countries have made significant investments in infrastructure and education but have not achieved the scientific development and technological and innovative capability either to retain or to recover the human capital that they have generated. This raises the question of whether it is justified to continue losing human capital or to make the additional investment in science and technology and bring about the innovations needed to stop the loss and convert it into wealth generation. Although every country, irrespective of size, must be able to use knowledge to compete in international markets, smaller economies may lack the market or population size to make the acquisition of certain skills profitable; they may thus be less affected by emigration (17). On the other hand, large economies may have the diversity of human resources and educational infrastructure to overcome losses resulting from emigration. Nevertheless, the qualitative characteristics of the individuals (creativity, the population lost through emigration can critically limit specific capabilities that are not readily compensated for either by other endogenously trained individuals or the influx of immigrants. vision, high tolerance for risk) and Neg – Cant Solve Brain Drain Alt causes to Mexican brain drain – lack of security, democracy, open economy, high income jobs, high US demand Torres and Wittchen 09 – Researchers at Adam Mickiewicz University working on Erasmus Mundus projects (Mario Alberto and Urszula, “Brain Drain across the Globe: Country Case Studies”, Mundus project, 2009, http://pre.docdat.com/docs/index-114593.html)//BD The number of Mexican immigrants leaving college campuses increases, including the alumni of prestigious Monterrey Institute of Technology, known as “Mexico’s MIT”. The press claims that well-educated immigrants exile themselves from a country that has failed to lower the income and opportunity gap between it and its wealthy northern neighbour, or provide basic security for its population (Corchado, 2008). According to the International Organization for Migration, which studied the exodus of educated Mexicans to the United States, an estimated 14,000 of the 19,000 Mexicans with doctorates live in the US, many in north Texas. The number of Mexicans making leaving for the United States recently doubled in 2005 - from 275,000 emigrating annually ten years ago, to an estimated 500,000 a year nowadays - and this trend continues. Nearly half of them are specialists or professionals, who immigrate legally through special work visas. The Mexican government makes efforts to strengthening ties with Mexican expatriates, as part of the Mexicans Abroad Program, and the new Red de Talentos (Network of Talents), which targets Mexican entrepreneurs. The idea is to encourage investment in Mexico to create jobs there, and maybe to bring some of them back. But there are also mental barriers, difficult to surmount. A good exemplification of the growing unwillingness and rising difficulties with making the decision to return among migrants who have successfully spent a long time abroad can be found in the words of the Mexican potential expat in the US, who first “believed that if only there were a true democracy in Mexico, if only there were a more open economy, if only Mexico were more closely linked to the United States through a free trade agreement, if only there were more jobs and no peso crises - then Mexican workers would stay home to raise their families and build their country rather than making the journey to the US”. But now, when many of these expectations have become a reality, the old “if onlys” have been replaced by new ones: “If only jobs in Mexico paid better, if only free trade brought more benefits, if only the political parties weren’t always fighting, if only there weren’t so many drug killings. And if only there wasn’t such a demand in the United States for young, ambitious students like them” (Corchado, 2008). Possible Nieto Credibility Advantage CIR Impact Turn Plan is uniquely key to Nieto’s reforms – immigration reform causes more brain drain Hennemuth 13 (Elizabeth, The Project on International Peace and Security, “Unintended Consequences Considering Mexico’s Stability when Designing U.S. Immigration Reform,” May 2013, http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/pips/20122013/hennemuth_e_brief.pdf, AC) More visas for highly skilled and educated workers would create opportunities for middle-class¶ Mexicans seeking employment, safety, and a better future for their children. A large-scale influx ¶ of Mexican professionals into the United States would deny Mexico the economic, political, and ¶ social leaders needed to enact President Peña Nieto’s proposed reforms. ¶ one in seven Mexicans with ¶ Master’s degrees live in the United States.160 From 1971 to 2008, Mexico lost 2,100 ¶ scientists and more than 140 billion pesos the Mexican government invested in their ¶ education.161 Mexicans have several means to pursue nonimmigrant educational and ¶ employment migration, such as through the NAFTA Professional (TN) visa, which has ¶ had no numerical limit since 2004.162 Furthermore, from 2000-2012, the number of ¶ nonimmigrant Mexicans investing significant capital in U.S. businesses through E-2 ¶ NAFTA visas doubled.163 Moreover, the number of Mexicans immigrating on the EB-5 ¶ visa, which aims to grow the U.S. economy through immigrants’ capital investment and ¶ job creation in U.S. businesses, has recently increased.164¶ Mexico’s brain drain likely would worsen as immigration reform makes it easier for ¶ professionals, especially those in STEM fields, to immigrate to the United States legally.¶ In an April 2013 report, the Banco de México and the Migration Policy Institute predicted¶ more Mexican migration in skilled employment sectors, as well as an overall return to net ¶ migration inflows of 230,000 to 330,000 annually, between 2011 and 2017. ¶ 165¶ Many educated professionals cannot find employment in their fields in Mexico. For ¶ example, in 2012, President Calderón reported that 130,000 engineers and technicians ¶ graduate from Mexican universities and specialized high schools—more than in Canada, ¶ Germany, or Brazil.166 But the number of Mexicans employed as engineers has barely ¶ grown, increasing from 1.1 million in 2006 to 1.3 million in 2012.167 Engineering ¶ students often take technician jobs for which they are over-qualified.168 In contrast, 4 of ¶ the top 10 fastest-growing sectors of the U.S. economy are in STEM fields.169¶ Environmentally conscious building construction, which is predicted to grow 22.8 ¶ percent over the next 5 years, would hibited economy. Many of President Peña Nieto’s proposed reforms require a ¶ skilled labor force for successful implementation—the same groups that U.S. ¶ immigration reform targets. For example, President Peña Nieto’s proposal to renovate ¶ Mexico’s railway system would create jobs likely attract skilled labor and engineers.170¶ for engineers and skilled laborers.171 Mexico ¶ also is starting to see a return of manufacturing jobs from China as China’s labor costs ¶ increase.¶ 172 If U.S. immigration reform attracts Mexicans employed in these sectors to the ¶ United States, then the demand for and wages of workers in Mexico would increase. The¶ ensuing higher manufacturing costs would again put Mexico in closer competition with ¶ China. The departure of better-educated, higher-earning migrants would leave the general¶ Mexican population worse off economically.17315¶ A brain drain could take away local leaders and technicians who otherwise could provide ¶ important public services in Mexico. Fewer qualified engineers, teachers, businesspeople, and ¶ politicians would deprive Mexico of leadership at the national level. Plan key to job opportunities in Mexico – immigration and remittances fail Hennemuth 13 (Elizabeth, The Project on International Peace and Security, “Unintended Consequences Considering Mexico’s Stability when Designing U.S. Immigration Reform,” May 2013, http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/pips/20122013/hennemuth_e_brief.pdf, AC) President Peña Nieto supports U.S. immigration reform, in part because he likely expects a boost ¶ in remittances from Mexican migrants.174 Mexico receives $23.6 billion in remittances ¶ annually—the third-largest amount in the world, after India and China.175 Although increased¶ migration may yield a boost in the total amount of remittances sent to Mexico, it cannot ¶ compensate for the simultaneous deficit in leadership and skilled labor. Remittances will be ¶ vulnerable to downturns in the U.S. economy and will not mitigate the brain drain. Since 2007, ¶ remittances received in Mexico have fallen by 14 percent, largely because of the U.S. economic ¶ downturn.176¶ Moreover, U.S. immigration reform will attract new middle- and upper-class Mexican ¶ immigrants, who are less likely to send remittances. More than three- fifths of remittance senders ¶ from Mexico and Central America can be considered “working poor” or “lower middle class,” ¶ with an income of less than $30,000.177 In Mexico, approximately 56 percent of all remittance-receiving households are classified as poor.¶ 178 On the other hand, only 14.3 percent of migrants ¶ in the United States earning $50,000 or more send remittances to their countries of origin.179 As ¶ more middleand upper-class Mexicans immigrate to the United States, remittances may not ¶ follow to the degree expected.¶ Although there are benefits to U.S. immigration reform, U.S. policymakers cannot afford to ¶ overlook the potentially negative consequences for Mexico’s long-term economic prospects. ¶ Additional stress on Mexico’s already struggling economy could further embolden organized ¶ crime to engage in violent activities that could also affect the United States.¶ Fewer Jobs Created in Mexico¶ Immigration reform would make the United States more attractive to Mexican entrepreneurs¶ whose absence would divest Mexico of their talents and potential job creation. President ¶ Calderón aimed to create 6 million new jobs during his term, but he created only 2.6 million.180¶ Small and medium-sized businesses create the largest proportion of jobs in Mexico.181 The ¶ average Mexican entrepreneur is 25 to 44 years old, is highly educated and middle-income, and ¶ still has other jobs.182 Inadequate access to capital, however, impedes Mexican ¶ entrepreneurship.¶ 183 The Milken Institute Capital Access Report of 2009 ranked Mexico 45th out ¶ of 122 countries regarding its access to capital, whereas the United States ranked fifth.184¶ If immigration reform attracts more Mexican entrepreneurs to the United States, Mexico will ¶ lose the people most likely to create much-needed jobs. Returning migrants are among the best ¶ equipped to create jobs, with wages for male migrants who return to Mexico five percent higher ¶ than for non-migrant males.185 If they return to Mexico, these migrants have the potential to make significant contributions to Mexico’s economy through entrepreneurial ventures. ¶ Increasing employment opportunities could help reduce Mexicans’ dependence on the informal ¶ economy for employment.186 Consequently, the security situation could improve, as countries ¶ with lower levels of income inequality and unemployment tend to have lower homicide rates.18 S&T Leadership Advantage Uniq: S&T Collapsing Now More S&T needed to maintain leadership – NSB report shows US will be overcome by Asian S&T NSF 12 – US government agency that supports research and education in science and engineering (“New Report Outlines Trends in U.S. Global Competitiveness in Science and Technology,” National Science Board, 1/17/12, http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122859&)//RH The United States remains the global leader in supporting science and technology (S&T) research and development, but only by a slim margin that could soon be overtaken by rapidly increasing Asian investments in knowledge-intensive economies. So suggest trends released in a new report by the National Science Board (NSB), the policymaking body for the National Science Foundation (NSF), on the overall status of the science, engineering and technology workforce, education efforts and economic activity in the United States and abroad. "This information clearly shows we must re-examine long-held assumptions about the global dominance of the American science and technology enterprise," said NSF Director Subra Suresh of the findings in the Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 released today. "And we must take seriously new strategies for education, workforce development and innovation in order for the United States to retain its international leadership position," he said. Uniq: No S&T Now More S&T needed to maintain leadership – empirics prove Hummel et al 12 – Hummel - Ph.D in Mathematics, Chief Scientist at Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, former project manager at DARPA. Cheetham – Research Associate for Academic Centers and Programs at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, research and analytical support to policy development projects for DOD (Robert Hummel, Patrick Cheetham, Justin Rossi, “US Science and Technology Leadership, and Technology Grand Challenges,” Synesis, 2012, http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol3_g/Hummel_2012_G14-39.pdf)//RH The US enjoys a science and technology (S&T) enterprise that is the envy of the world. Our universities, industries, laboratories, and government institutions have developed and used technology that has driven economic benefits and secured superpower defense status. The US remains the leader in S&T innovation, a position enjoyed since World War II. While the health of the US S&T enterprise remains strong, there are considerable stresses within each major component. Some believe that the US position as leader in S&T could falter, at least in some fields. We review the stresses in various components of the S&T enterprise and the evidence of trends in S&T quality. We conclude that the enterprise this leadership position, in order to be maintained, requires specific challenges, to aim at “goalposts.” While most of the work in the S&T fields result in incremental improvements to products and capabilities, certain grand challenges are within our grasp if the science and technology community is provided with specific directions and priorities. Much as the 1961 call by then-President Kennedy, for a manned mission to the moon and safe return with a deadline of less than a decade, provided an impetus for advances and accomplishments that benefited the nation, national security, and society in general, so too it should be possible to develop certain specific applications in reasonable time-frames that achieve new specific goals. maintains a leadership position for now. We believe that Uniq: Funding Key Lack of public funding now – doesn’t meet recommendations of S&T organizations, political barriers Rosen 11 – Science Journalist, MSc in science communication at Imperial College London (Cecelia, Rebuilding Mexico’s science and technology capacity”, SciDev.net, 5/30/11, http://www.scidev.net/global/migration/feature/rebuilding-mexico-s-science-and-technology-capacity1.html)//BD ¶ Lack of public investment is also partly to blame for the country's poor performance in S&T. In the last eight years the public sector spent between 0.3 and 0.4 per cent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) on S&T — less than half of the one per cent recommended by the OECD and stipulated by a Mexican S&T law passed in 2002.¶ In the run-up to last year's budget in November, the Vincula group demanded that S&T should receive at least 0.5 per cent of GDP instead of the 0.34 per cent that the government was proposing. But Congress passed the budget almost without changes, and approved US$3.9 billion (0.34 per cent of GDP) for 2011, according to an analysis by Hector Ramírez, an economist at UNAM .¶ Some parliamentarians think 0.5 per cent could easily be achieved.¶ "With all the money we spend on national security, the fight against poverty … if we take out of that a very small amount we can have that money without having anybody starving in this country," said parliamentarian Alejandro Bahena during a meeting with the G11.¶ "There is always goodwill for science and technology, at least at the level of political discourse," says Javier Castell, co-ordinator of the Senatorial Science and Technology Commission at the Mexican congress. "The problem is that it is not expressed in changes in the budget. They are not interested enough in the subject."¶ The G11 issued a statement after the budget, saying: " The role of parliament in the final drafting of the budget for science, technology and innovation was disappointing because a system of quotas and political interests prevailed, as well as a short-term vision over the common good and interests of Mexico."¶ Ruiz, who now directs UNAM's science faculty, supports the idea ofsetting up a new ministry of higher education, science and technology to boost the budget.¶ "This would give higher status to the subject and would also facilitate a less centralised science budget," says Ruiz, who points out it would mean there would finally be statelevel science and technology policies as well as national ones. Uniq: S&T Leadership at Risk US leadership in S&T is waning – increasing competition from international sources Hane 8 - technology, business, and policy consultant in Rockville, Maryland and was assistant director of OSTP for international strategy and affairs in the Clinton administration (Gerald, “Science, Technology, and Global Reengagement”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2008, http://www.issues.org/25.1/hane.html)//BD The new administration should move quickly to give science and technology (S&T) a prominent role in foreign policy. Historic shifts are under way in S&T capabilities around the globe. Those shifts create unprecedented opportunities for discovery and innovation, for responding to common challenges, and for U.S. leadership. Yet rather than being poised to lead the way, the United States is in a weak position.¶ The new administration will probably reformulate U.S. global policies, giving a higher priority to international engagement instead of unilateralism. International links in S&T can play a central role in this global reengagement. But to realize this potential, S&T issues related to foreign policy can no longer just be at the table. They must be in the lead.¶ A number of studies during the past few decades have stressed the importance of U.S.international partnerships in S&T. But follow-up actions have been modest at best. Why haven’t past recommendations had a significant impact? What can the incoming administration do to achieve better success, leveraging global trends and U.S. S&T capabilities to more fully advance common interests?¶ To be meaningful , S&T policy changes must reflect power and process in the government. S&T interests must be able to define policies at the highest levels. They must be able to influence budgets, spur action throughout the federal government, and work with partners, both international and domestic.¶ Science, technology, and diplomacy intertwined at high levels throughout the second half of the 20th century. President Kennedy launched the first bilateral science agreement with Japan after World War II, and it led to one of the nation’s strongest international partnerships. President Nixon promoted building scientific links with China as he began normalizing relations, and Chinese universities have become a leading source of graduate students in U.S. science and engineering programs. President Clinton leveraged decades of scientific ties with the former Soviet Union to assist in the safer disposition of hundreds of tons of weapons-grade nuclear material. Today, there are many more possibilities for win-win collaboration.¶ Asia’s investment in R&D is on the verge of surpassing that of North America. China has exceeded Japan in its national S&T investment and now trails only the United States. The World Technology Evaluation Center recently assessed research in China in fields such as nanotechnology, catalysis, and the brain-computer interface. In each case, China is doing research that is defining the state-of-the-art and is developing facilities second to none.¶ In South Korea, the government elevated the S&T minister to deputy prime minister. Economies from India to Indonesia have devised policies to advance S&T. India has passed South Korea in total R&D expenditures while launching a massive program to expand higher education. Indonesia held its first National Innovation Summit in the summer of 2006. Singapore continues to advance as the world-class biotech hub in Asia while Malaysia continues to be the information technology leader. Vietnam is a hot spot for new ventures.¶ In 2007, the 22 nations of the Arab League announced a 10-year plan to increase support for scientific research 12-fold, to an average of 2.5% of GDP. Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak has declared 2007-2017 as Egypt’s “Decade of Science,” and Qatar—despite a population of less than 1 million—has pledged a $1.5 billion annual allocation to science. In Saudi Arabia, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology is being launched in 2009, with an initial endowment of $10 billion. Private sources are also moving to play a major role. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum of the United Arab Emirates has created a pan-Arab educational foundation with an endowment of $10 billion.¶ In the African Union, nations developed a consolidated S&T action plan with the theme “Science, Technology and Scientific Research and Climate Change” for the 2007 Summit of Heads of State. In Latin America, Brazil continues to expand its investment in S&T and its global leadership in biomass renewable energy. The presidents of Chile and Argentina have launched programs to promote development of their S&T capabilities. Uniq: S&T Declining USAID declining now – S&T capacity, staffing and funding – increase in S&T assistance key Fedoroff 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, administrator of USAID, science and technology advisor to the Secretary of State and US Department of State (Nina, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH Nearly all aspects of development require science and technology or would benefit from them, and this will only grow in the future. Yet USAID has suffered steep declines in S&T capacity, staffing, and funding, particularly in overseas missions, where such knowledge is crucial to the development of foreign assistance programs that fully respond to local needs. In parallel, so too has the Agency's support for research to develop a new generation of technologies and practices to address these emerging or deepening problems of development. These shortfalls have hurt the Agency's ability to achieve its mission. Links: Public Funding Key Public investment is key– efficient use of funding, need basic research Rosen 11 – Science Journalist, MSc in science communication at Imperial College London (Cecelia, Rebuilding Mexico’s science and technology capacity”, SciDev.net, 5/30/11, http://www.scidev.net/global/migration/feature/rebuilding-mexico-sscience-and-technology-capacity-1.html)//BD "Innovation and technological development occur on a small scale, through boosting the competitiveness of small- and medium-sized companies," says Cortizo.¶ But Mexico's innovation capital is concentrated in public universities, according to a study by the country's National Autonomous University (UNAM), which found that, for every scientific project developed by private companies, the public sector generates ten.¶ That is why academics, including Laclette and Menchaca-Rocha, asked the government to be cautious about restoring tax exemptions, saying that public support for companies to stimulate technology development should be based on links to public universities and research centres. "Companies that are better linked with universities, for example, should receive a bigger proportion of the support," says Laclette.¶ "We need to make the scientific system grow and boost technological development at the same time, but we can't produce technology at the expense of basic research," adds Rosaura Ruiz, ex-president of the Mexican School of Sciences, who believes technology development has been favoured over basic research.¶ Mexico's innovation capital is concentrated in public universities such as the National Autonomous University S&T Leadership Key (USAID) S&T in USAID Aligns U.S. S&T Policies Hane 8 - technology, business, and policy consultant in Rockville, Maryland and was assistant director of OSTP for international strategy and affairs in the Clinton administration (Gerald, “Science, Technology, and Global Reengagement”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2008, http://www.issues.org/25.1/hane.html)//BD Yet trends have been moving in the opposite direction. At the State Department, despite the establishment in 2000 of the post of science advisor to the secretary of state, little has been done to reverse decades of decay in S&T priorities. Career incentives have not yet been reestablished since the elimination in the mid-1990s of career tracks in oceans, environment, and science and the downgrading of science counselor positions at U.S. embassies around the world. Science at State is borne on the shoulders of temporary science fellows.¶ The U.S. Agency for International Development ( USAID) eliminated its Research and Development Bureau in 1993 and subsequently cancelled other S&T budget items, including a successful international fellowship program, which had more than 3,200 African professionals earning graduate degrees at U.S. universities. In 2003-2004, while the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was studying and validating the value of S&T to U.S. international development priorities, USAID eliminated more of its S&T functions. The once active USAID Science Fellows program has all but disappeared.¶ With emerging fields such as nanotech nology and biotechnology, cooperation would help prepare international policies from the outset rather than having to harmonize a maze of national regulations. ¶ The White House also stepped back. In 2001, the White House eliminated the management position dedicated to international S&T issues in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as well as the NSTC’s committee on international science, engineering, and technology—which had launched the emerging infectious diseases initiative described above.¶ Turnaround formula ¶ In order to make a difference, policies must establish authority, provide resources, and align incentives. This is the leadership package that enables action . The measures should include leadership from the top, defining a position from which things can get done, influencing budgets, and incorporating incentives so that the bureaucracy wants to execute the policy. Here are some specific proposals.¶ Leadership. Internals: Nano Coop Solves National Devp International cooperation is key – fight diseases, discover medications, counterterrorism, natural disasters, food supply Hane 8 - technology, business, and policy consultant in Rockville, Maryland and was assistant director of OSTP for international strategy and affairs in the Clinton administration (Gerald, “Science, Technology, and Global Reengagement”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2008, http://www.issues.org/25.1/hane.html)//BD many common challenges that can be addressed most effectively if nations pool and leverage their assets. In the battle against infectious diseases, the need to work closely with nations such as Indonesia and Vietnam is critical in dealing with avian influenza. In the search for new medications, cooperation can expand exploration of tropical organisms, which are the source of 25% of Western pharmaceuticals. The United States could learn much from Europe and Japan about using energy more efficiently, and many countries are eager to find ways to capture and sequester carbon. Penrose Albright, the first assistant secretary for S&T in the Department of Homeland Security, has observed that “ international ¶ Accompanying this increased capability around the globe is the heightened recognition that humanity now faces cooperation in S&T must underpin any U.S. counterterrorism strategy . … the needed talent (and understanding of the threat) exists in the broader international community.”¶ Helping countries prepare for natural disasters can be enhanced through global monitoring and the expertise of other nations, such as Japan’s capabilities in earthquake mitigation . To improve the food supply and nutrition, cooperation will speed genome projects to decode the DNA of food staples from wheat to rice to kiwis . With emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, cooperation would help prepare international policies from the outset rather than having to harmonize a maze of national regulations . As National Science Foundation (NSF) director Arden Bement has observed, “ International cooperation in science is not a luxury. It is a necessity .”¶ Turgid processes¶ If S&T are to be seriously integrated into global affairs, the OSTP director must be a member of the National Security Council as well as the National Economic Council.¶ Although the science community often feels that the importance of these international issues should compel action, action does not necessarily follow. Take the example of the U.S. government’s initiative to address emerging infectious diseases. In response to a growing array of these scourges, the United States in the mid-1990s launched an initiative to better address them where they arise. But the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) allocated to addressing global emerging infections was only about $5.6 million. (By contrast, Dustin Hoffman received a reported $8 million for his role in the movie Outbreak, which dealt with the danger of an epidemic.)¶ Internals: USAID k US has the means to promote S&T globally – multiple agencies and programs are international Committee on Science and Technology 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress (“International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH (USAID) is the primary agency supporting science for development. Many USAID initiatives on S&T related issues, such as infectious diseases, energy, natural resources management, and agriculture, draw on or build up local and regional S&T capacity in addition to contributing American know-how and resources. USAID used to have a separate Bureau for Science and Technology, but The U.S. Agency for International Development several years ago that Bureau was dismantled and the science and technology activities spread among the appropriate functional and regional bureaus. However, when Dr. Fedoroff was appointed Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State, she convinced Secretary Rice to assign to her the additional role of S&T Adviser to USAID Administrator Henrietta Ford. Aside from NSF, the National Institutes of (NIH) and the USDA are the only research agencies with explicit international programs. In fact, NIH has a separate Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences, which addresses global health challenges through collaborative research and training programs and international partnerships. USDA has many international programs, including international offices and overseas laboratories, in addition to the Foreign Agriculture Service. The remainder of the mission agencies also engage in international science cooperation, but wrap those projects into their domestic Health programs rather than having separate programs or offices. NASA in particular has international partners for most of its big projects due to the tremendous costs of building and launching into orbit the kinds of telescopes and other research and exploration equipment required for their mission. All of these domestic mission agencies are careful to state that they only engage in science cooperation for the sake of science and do not have or want a role in diplomacy or development. Internals: Congres. Axn K: Commit. Congressional support is key – define agency missions, momentum, creates long term commitment Hane 8 - technology, business, and policy consultant in Rockville, Maryland and was assistant director of OSTP for international strategy and affairs in the Clinton administration (Gerald, “Science, Technology, and Global Reengagement”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2008, http://www.issues.org/25.1/hane.html)//BD ¶ The congressional role¶ Past studies fail to highlight the critical role played by Congress in S&T policy. Its leadership and support are essential. Members of Congress have often complained that international engagement in S&T is a handout rather than an activity of mutual benefit to the United States and other countries. This clearly deters agency actions. There are three ways to start the process of improving support from Congress: Create a congressional caucus on S&T in global affairs, develop congressional resolutions expressing support, and pass legislation to define global engagement as one tool in effectively fulfilling agency missions and serving the public.¶ Creating a congressional S&T caucus would help organize congressional support, identify appropriate congressional leaders, provide a forum for education and information exchange, and enable more effective policy guidance. Such congressional caucuses have long existed for national defense, health care, the environment, and S&T for competitiveness.¶ As an example, in 1997, the Senate S&T caucus provided active dialogue and support for doubling the NSF research budget. On the House side, Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Judy Biggert (R-IL) formed a similar congressional R&D caucus. These two caucuses have also been active in supporting the annual S&T congressional visits day, during which professional and academic organizations flock to Capitol Hill to present briefings on the need for sustained investments.¶ To promote science and math education, Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Mark Udall (D-CO) launched a bipartisan education caucus for members of Congress, and Sens. Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) established a similar science and math education caucus in the Senate.¶ To express support, proclamations such as congressional resolutions and senses of the Congress could be a first step. These do not have the force of law, but provide the federal bureaucracy with confirmation that members of Congress back a policy priority. These proclamations can also be done quickly. In a bureaucracy that is often gun-shy when it comes to international S&T, signs of support from Congress would strike a positive chord.¶ For example, in 2004, both the House and the Senate passed resolutions that encouraged the government and public to observe the World Year of Physics and to engage in educational and research activities to strengthen awareness of the field and advance its knowledge base. The Senate and House resolutions on the International Polar Year of 2007 similarly called for certain agencies to give priority to promoting this event and directed NSF to report on how they would do so.¶ Legislation would make clear that federal agency missions include leveraging international partnerships in S&T. This would give positive momentum to agencies, make the priority unambiguous, and provide a stronger basis for long-term commitment should future administrations wobble. Agency reauthorization bills provide one such opportunity to confirm this priority. The House Committee on Science and Technology held two hearings in 2008 on the international dimensions of S&T opportunities, which could be important step in this direction. Nano K More nanotech key to preventing economic collapse and soft power – US is losing lead in scientific race and risks losing leadership in renewable energy, clean water, and cancer cures Salvi 8 – Vice President of NanoBusiness Alliance, Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (Aatish, “A Global Technology Race the U.S. Must Win,” Los Angeles Times, 2/25/2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-op-salvi kimbrell25feb25,0,3578394.story)//RH Nanotechnology is the frontier of innovation; given its potential, it is not surprising that it is the focus of a global scientific race. The prize for winning this race is leadership in the production of renewable energy, clean water, cancer cures and next-generation computing. The U.S. government took an early lead in 2002 with the 21st Century Research and Development Act, which pledged $5 billion over four years to become a leader in nano science. That lead has steadily been eroded. Japan announced an equivalent initiative within months of ours. Since then, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China, Taiwan, India and Singapore have stepped up to the plate with significant investments. The 21st Century Research and Development Act expires this year, and we have not been in a technology race this close since the Apollo project. Given what is at stake and the degree to which the U.S. relies on innovation to fuel its economy, nanotechnology is a global competition that America can ill-afford not to win. Impacts: S&T K Leadership USFG leadership key – efficiently use assets, strengthen global leadership, meet challenges, increase innovation Hane 8 - technology, business, and policy consultant in Rockville, Maryland and was assistant director of OSTP for international strategy and affairs in the Clinton administration (Gerald, “Science, Technology, and Global Reengagement”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2008, http://www.issues.org/25.1/hane.html)//BD ¶ For decades, U.S. policy toward the dual faces of S&T in international affairs has hobbled along. The growth of global capabilities in S&T and the rise of common global challenges increase the handicap stemming from this weak engagement. Policies to advance S&T have come to the forefront in all regions of the world, and the rise of capabilities in all continents has broadly expanded the sources of discovery and innovation. The world is advancing, but U.S. policies are standing still.¶ Only with leadership at the highest level, combined with appropriate resources and incentives down to the operational level, can the United States gain full advantage from these underused national and international assets. The new administration has an historic chance to leverage global opportunities in S&T. This could strengthen U.S. global leadership, more effectively meet pressing challenges, and enhance the speed of discovery and innovation. The challenge to the next administration is to see the world as it is changing and to lead. Internal Link Turn: Sci Dip k Effective Diplomacy US S&T cooperation provides a model for international diplomacy and is key to international economic growth, relations, and continued innovation – spills over – empirics prove Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss NSF's combined research and education portfolio provides rich examples of global S&T cooperation. We believe that science collaboration and science diplomacy are essential ingredients for America's future progress and prosperity. I am pleased to testify on this important and timely issue. Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of U.S. diplomacy since the end of World War II. They have been the enablers of larger international diplomacy efforts, from the robust scientific exchange with China to renewed and strengthened relations with Egypt, India, and Pakistan-all started with the peaceful beachhead of scientific diplomacy. For instance, polls indicate that people in the Middle East generally view American S&T more favorably than other aspects of our society. This approving attitude provides for favorable forums to explain other aspects of American policies and actions. Our nation's citizens also benefit directly from S&T cooperation, as it provides our scientists and engineers with greater access to cutting-edge research and allows us to work across geographical boundaries to solve global problems. In addition, globalization has amplified the worldwide competition for ideas, science and engineering (S&E) talent, and leadership in turning new knowledge into realworld applications. Many nations are accelerating their investments in research and development, education, and infrastructure in order to drive sustained economic growth. To continue being a global leader in S&T, we must ensure that we have access to discoveries being made in every corner of the world. The National Science Foundation understands the global nature of scientific discovery, and the international character of knowledge creation and research activities are stressed in NSF's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Investing in America's Future. For more than 55 years, NSF has connected S&E researchers and educators in academic organizations, industry and informal science institutions, both nationally and internationally, to leverage intellectual capabilities. NSF has strengthened the Nation's collaborative advantage by leading or participating in key interagency initiatives as well as by developing innovative collaborations across all S&E disciplines. Three categories of activities illustrate NSF's engagement in international S&T: (1) leadership and diplomacy efforts to foster global S&E connectivity; (2) the coordination and support of research projects, both large and small, that have an international component; and (3) the activities of NSF's Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE). The following selected examples underscore the broad influence international science and technology (S&T) cooperation and the National Science Foundation's (NSF) current international activities. of NSF activities. Internals: NSF Key S&T Specifically, the NSF is key – US S&T is funded by NSF Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH The U.S. portion of international S&E research and education activities is funded by all NSF directorates and research offices. International implications are found throughout all of NSF's activities, from individual research awards and fellowships for students to study abroad, to centers, collaborations, joint projects, and shared networks that demonstrate the value of partnering with the United States. As a result of its international portfolio encompassing projects in all S&E disciplines, NSF effectively partners with almost every country in the world. The following examples illustrate the international breadth and scope of NSF's international portfolio.The Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, an NSF-wide activity, gives undergraduate students the opportunity to engage in high-quality research, often at important international sites. One of these sites is CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Switzerland, and one of the world's premier international laboratories. Undergraduate students work with faculty mentors and research groups at CERN, where they have access to facilities unavailable anywhere else in the world. NSF also Collaborations among individual NSF-supported investigators are also common in NSF's portfolio. Recently, scientists at the University of Chicago created a single-molecule diode, a potential building block for nanoelectronics. Theorists at the University of South Florida and the Russian Academy of Sciences then explained the principle of how such a device works. They jointly published their findings. There are also examples where NSF partners with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to support international S&T programs to facilitate capacity building. For example, the U.S.-Pakistan Science and Technology Program, provides support for the Large Hadron Collider housed at CERN. led by a coordinating committee chaired by Dr. Arden Bement, NSF Director, and Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, Pakistan Minister of Education and Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. USAID funds the U.S. contribution of the joint program and supports other programs in Pakistan involving NIH and other agencies. This U.S.-Pakistan S&T program supports a number of joint research projects peer reviewed by the National Over the past year, the Committee has also established sixteen S&T working groups that involve interagency participation in Pakistan and in the United States to carry out joint research projects of mutual interest (with direct benefit to Pakistan). Through this collaboration, NSF just completed a network connection of Internet 2 with Pakistan to facilitate research and education collaborations and data exchanges under the program. This project embodies one of NSF's top priorities, the development of the national science and engineering cyberinfrastructure, enabling a prime role for the United States in global research networks. NSF's goals for the national cyberinfrastructure include the ability to integrate data from Academy of Sciences and approved by the joint S&T committee. diverse disciplines and multiple locations, and to make them widely available to researchers, educators, and students. Already, the Grid Physics Network and the international Virtual Data Grid Laboratory are advancing IT-intensive research in physics, cosmology, and astrophysics. In today's highly sophisticated, technology-driven science, many international partnerships center around major, high-budget research facilities that are made possible only by combining the resources of more than one nation. For example, NSF's facilities budget includes construction funds for the IceCube neutrino detector, antennas for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), and observation technologies for the Arctic Observing Network (AON). The IceCube Neutrino Observatory--the world's first high-energy neutrino observatory--offers a powerful example of an international, interagency research platform. Agencies in Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have joined NSF and Department of Energy (DOE) in providing support for IceCube, which will search for neutrinos from deep within the ice cap under the South Pole in Antarctica. Neutrinos are hard-to-detect astronomical messengers that carry information from cosmological events. The Atacama Large Millimeter Array, currently under construction near San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, will be the world's most sensitive, highest resolution, millimeter wavelength telescope. The array will make it possible to search for planets around hundreds of nearby stars and will provide a testing ground for theories of star birth, galaxy formation, and the evolution of the universe. ALMA has been made possible via an international partnership among North America, Europe, and East Asia, in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. NSF is the U.S. lead on this ground-breaking astronomical facility. As part of the aforementioned IPY activities, NSF serves as lead contributing agency for the Arctic Observing Network (AON)--an effort to significantly advance our observational capability in the Arctic. AON will help us document the state of the present climate system, and the nature and extent of climate changes occurring in the Arctic regions. The network, organized under the direction of the U.S. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, involves partnerships with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Smithsonian Institution, National Institutes of Health, DOE, and USDA. NSF coordinates AON activities across the U.S. government, as well as with international collaborators, including Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Russia. NSF leadership and proactive involvement in large international research projects helps ensure that U.S. S&E stays at the frontier. Such international infrastructure projects will continue to play a key role in advancing S&E capacity worldwide. Internals: NSF = Effective Model NSF provides an effective model for other countries and makes collaboration and funding more effective – OISE interface helps many countries model the NSF Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH OISE also serves as an interface for NSF's directorates, offices, divisions, and programs with multi-national organizations, international science organizations, and national funding agencies and ministries in other countries. OISE often works with international many, particularly those in developing countries, look to NSF as a model for how to run their programs. These efforts help align agency procedures close to those of NSF, which can often make collaboration and science funding more effective in these countries. For example, the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) Ministry of Higher Education has commissioned their scientists to establish a National Research Foundation by early 2008. These scientists visited NSF in January 2008 to learn about NSF procedures for support of research and evaluation of results. Additionally, the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh, NSF's counterpart agency in Saudi Arabia, will send its Director of Research in August 2008 to learn about NSF. China also sends representatives to study the NSF experience, as their research agency, modeled on NSF, operates in a similar fashion. Additionally, Turkey, France, and Ireland, among others, are emulating the NSF model. counterpart agencies to educate them on the Foundation's peer review process, organizational structure, and funding process, as Internals: OISE k S&T Coop [NOTE: OISE is supported by NSF] Specifically, more OISE dialogue key to increasing S&T cooperation between countries Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH In recent years, OISE has put greater emphasis on increasing linkages between scientists in the United States and those in developing countries. Specifically, OISE hired a new Program Manager for Developing Countries to expand collaborations with developing countries. Outreach presentations have been given at 12 domestic institutions and 20 international institutions in OISE program manager and NSF senior leadership are also initiating and continuing dialogue with 12 funding agencies appropriate to co-fund the developing countries' portion of S&E projects, e.g., the International Foundation for Science, the International Rice Research Institute, USAID, and the World Bank. The progress of humankind will depend increasingly on the new knowledge of science and technology. The collaborative pursuit of new knowledge is a powerful tool for bringing people together, and OISE activities will continue to stimulate global collaboration. 10 countries. This Impacts: S&T Coop k Competitiveness US S&T collaboration key to competitiveness – new global society demands Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH International collaboration in S&E is a necessary foundation for the future. In order for the United States to be competitive in this new global society, we must engage in international research. And, we must proactively develop a workforce that is adept at working on international research teams. For NSF, this means a continued commitment to foster collaborations of all kinds and to seek new forms of partnership to address today's research challenges and opportunities. The more widely research, data, and new knowledge are shared, the broader the resulting perspectives. As you can see from the numerous examples above, the National Science Foundation is committed to international partnership and collaboration on many levels. We will continue to leverage our broad mission to catalyze international research endeavors in all disciplines and to train an internationally engaged S&E workforce. We will also continue to leverage science and engineering know-how and the NSF model to catalyze larger diplomatic efforts. Impacts: Disease/Climate/Enviro (In 1AC) US S&T assistance key to diplomacy, national security, and economy – disease, climate change, environmental degradation, and resource shortages necessitates international cooperation Fedoroff 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, administrator of USAID, science and technology advisor to the Secretary of State and US Department of State (Nina, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH assisting countries to use science and technology to build food security, manage land and water resources, and create knowledge-based economic opportunities, are essential goals for U.S. diplomacy and U.S. national security. Indeed, they are a central element of the Secretary's Transformational Diplomacy Initiative. Let me give you just one small personal example of science diplomacy, from my experience Encouraging, and more importantly, before I came to State. I am a plant molecular biologist and geneticist. In 2004, I published a book on the science behind genetically modified plants, generally known as GM crops, or GMOs. Not long after, I received an e-mail from a junior Foreign Service Officer in the American Embassy in Bangladesh, inviting me to come and speak about GMOs. Bangladesh is a poor country, with a limited amount of arable land, and a still-growing population. It badly needs contemporary science to increase its agricultural output. Caught between Bangladesh had not developed its own GM policy. The conference opened an important dialogue among scientists in our country and theirs, diplomats and U.S. acceptance and Europe's continued rejection of GM crops, government officials, as well as the local press, in the effort to distinguish fact from fiction in this highly charged area and move forward. There is a growing recognition that science and technology are, and will increasingly be, the drivers of the successful economies of the 21st Century. From countries to companies, today's organizations are shaped by their expertise in science, technology, and engineering. Improving the welfare and stability of the poorest nations will require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the underlying disparities in access to the education, the science, and the technology essential The world also faces common threats, climate change, energy and water shortages, infectious diseases, and environmental degradation. Such threats are blind to political boundaries. The birds that spread avian flu don't apply for visas or stop at border crossings. Addressing global challenges necessitates international scientific cooperation. Scientists speak a common language, making it possible for members of ideologically divergent societies to for economic growth. cooperatively address the problems confronting all of us. S&T cooperation is key to sound policy-making, reliable international benchmarks, good will, strong relations, democracy, civil society, innovation, and solutions to disease and climate change Miotke 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Foreign Service Officer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Science, Space, and Health (Jeff, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG110hhrg41470.htm)//RH Science and science-based approaches make tangible improvements in people's lives. Strategically applied, S&T outreach serves as a powerful tool to reach important segments of civil society. Sound science is a critical foundation for sound policy-making and ensures that the international community develops reliable international benchmarks. Science is global in nature--international cooperation is essential if we are to find solutions to global issues like climate change and combating emerging infectious diseases. International scientific cooperation promotes good will, strengthens political relationships, helps foster democracy and civil society, and advances the frontiers of knowledge for the benefit of all. Impacts: S&T Solves WMD/Prolif US S&T cooperation key to solve crop improvements, terrorism, WMD prolif, and brain drain Fedoroff 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, administrator of USAID, science and technology advisor to the Secretary of State and US Department of State (Nina, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The stillgrowing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for U.S. science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people's lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed `brain drain.' Through cooperative threat reduction activities, Additionally, the Department continues to use former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability. Impacts: Solves the DIsad US S&T assistance uniquely key - development, diplomacy, economic growth, poverty alleviation, agriculture, food security, health, climate, environment, democracy, and innovation – countries say yes Fedoroff 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, administrator of USAID, science and technology advisor to the Secretary of State and US Department of State (Nina, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH Development can directly support diplomacy and science is an integral part of development . The foci of our foreign assistance are building self-sustaining economies and poverty alleviation, transforming agriculture and resolving food insecurity, solving global health problems, climate and environment, as well as building democracy and supporting the rule of law . Science and technology have a role to play in all of these . Science, engineering, and technology are eagerly desired by developing countries and remain among the most admired aspects of American society. Access to S&T is a key component of innovation, which in turn, is a key component of economic competitiveness in all countries, at every stage of development. Investments in science and technology have long been recognized as a key element of development strategies to lift people out of poverty and onto a path of selfsufficiency and sustainable growth. Impacts: Solves Coop – Disease/Relations More S&T key to maximize cooperation on global issues and solve medicine, economy, relations, and national security – empirics prove Baird 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, former House Representative for 3rd Congressional District (Brian, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH we must do more to maximize the effectiveness of science and technology cooperation. Cooperation should not be pursued simply as a means of achieving bigger and better science. It should also be pursued for the sake of development, diplomacy, and informing decisionmakers around the world about critical environmental, security, economic, resource and health issues. It seems to me that the Federal Government might need an organization and a process dedicated to setting government-wide priorities and overseeing implementation of those priorities. One of my goals Unfortunately, I also learned that for this hearing is to understand how--or if--the Federal Government sets priorities for international science cooperation, and who is or who should be responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire effort. There have been some attempts in the past--such as the creation of a Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology under the President's National Science and Technology Council--to assign that task to a dedicated organization. Some experts have suggested assigning this task to the State Department itself. To that end, Congress created a Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State in 1999. Dr. Nina Fedoroff is the third renowned scientist to hold that position. In a demonstration of her commitment to better integrate science in our diplomatic activities, Dr. Fedoroff personally lobbied Secretary Rice to broaden her job description to include Science Adviser to the Administrator of USAID. While the State Department may be at the center of many of these efforts, I would be remiss to downplay the critical role played by a number of other agencies, including the National Science Foundation; the mission agencies, represented here today by NASA; and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has responsibility both for advising the President on the science and technology components of national and international issues, and for coordinating research and development activities across the Federal Government. Today, representatives from these agencies will tell us about current efforts and opportunities in international science and technology cooperation and help us understand how such cooperation benefits the United States and the world. I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to appear before the Committee this morning and I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, and Dr. Ehlers is sorry he could not be here to greet these esteemed--to hear these great witnesses today, and hear their testimony, but he is giving his own testimony before a committee this morning, and cannot be here. Hopefully, we will have the benefit of his presence shortly, but in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that his opening statement be inserted into the record. Chairman Baird. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] Prepared Statement of Science and technology as a vehicle of diplomacy has been explored by our nation, but I believe it is currently underutilized. This hearing will help us understand both the established foundation of science diplomacy and how we might build upon it. While I share the concern about the fiscal year 2008 omnibus and its impact on the ITER agreement, this is only one symptom of a Representative Vernon J. Ehlers International diplomacy can be crafted through a variety of mediums. greater problem: the perceived worth that scientific collaboration has to our foreign affairs. While it is hard to gauge the return on investment in international science and technology cooperation, it is much easier to realize the cost of not investing in these types of endeavors. Furthermore, the U.S. will not remain globally competitive in science and technology unless we are able to work with international partners on large facilities that simply cannot be financed by individual nations. In many fields, U.S. researchers would be crippled by lack of participation in these activities. I am very pleased that Dr. Fedoroff is testifying today and I believe that the Science and Technology Advisor position at the Department of State has helped build the profile of science and technology diplomacy. Thank you for your attendance, and I look forward to testimony from our panel today. Mr. Neugebauer. The issue of international science and technology cooperation is one of importance to this nation. This committee spends a significant amount of time talking about American science and technology developments and improvements in terms of global competitiveness. That is as it should be, and is necessary if we are going to remain ahead of the innovation curve. We do not spend as much time talking or hearing about global cooperation and collaboration when it comes to science and technology, but we are actively involved in these equally important endeavors, and I commend the Chairman for his interest in this topic, and for calling this hearing today. I am pleased to see that we have such a distinguished panel before us this morning to give us an update on what their agencies are doing and any challenges or obstacles that they may be facing when it comes to international cooperation. I thank you for coming, and I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:] Prepared Statement of Representative Randy Neugebauer Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. Dr. Ehlers is sorry he cannot be here to greet these esteemed witnesses and hear their testimony, but he is giving his own testimony before another Committee this morning and cannot be here. Hopefully, we will have the benefit of his presence shortly, but in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that his opening statement be inserted for the record. The issue of international science and technology cooperation is one of importance to this nation. This committee spends a significant amount of time talking about American science and technology developments and improvements in terms of global competitiveness. That is as it should be and is necessary if we are to remain ahead of the innovation curve. We do not spend as much time talking or hearing about global cooperation and collaboration when it comes to science and technology, but we are actively involved in these equally important endeavors, and I commend the Chairman for his interest in this topic and for calling this hearing today. I am pleased to see that we have such a distinguished panel before us this morning to give us an update on what their agencies are doing and any challenges or obstacles they may be facing when it comes to international cooperation. I thank you for coming; I look forward to your testimony; and I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on international collaborations in science and technology. In addition to my service on this committee, I also lead an International Woman's Peace Initiative that is dedicated to improving peace through the empowerment of women. I will be interested to know how our federal science enterprise is reaching out to other nations and utilizing scientific collaborations to strengthen ties to them. Specifically, S&T outreach to the Middle East is of interest to me. I have also had the opportunity to travel to Cuba several times. I know that the United States has medical International scientific collaborations with Cuba have decreased dramatically under the current Administration. This stricture has robbed American citizens of important medical breakthroughs, simply because our diplomats don't want to do business with Cuba. Scientific collaborations, when pursued, can serve as salve in old wounds, to speed their healing. When those bonds students who are there, trying to earn their medical degrees. are loosened or broken, harm may be done. I want to thank today's panelists for your presence here today and for the information that you are about to share. Members of this committee want to ensure that international collaborations are sustained and are well-coordinated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:] Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this important hearing on international science and technology. As a Member of both the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am pointedly interested in the coordination of international The United States has a central role in science diplomacy, building more positive relationships with other countries through science. We also understand that the U.S. can better affect U.S. national security and economic interests by helping to build technological capacity in other countries. I am particularly interested in the role that the Department of State plays in the effort and look forward to hearing more details. science and technology diplomacy. Impacts: IR, Relations, Poverty US S&T key to international tensions, relations, and poverty – only selfless scientific assistance solves – NSF assessment concludes (solvency takeout to conditions CPs) Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH The exchange of scientific information and the cooperation in international scientific research activities were identified by the first NSF Director, Alan Waterman, as two of the major responsibilities that Congress had given the agency. NSF embraced those responsibilities in its first cycle of grants, supporting international travel and the dissemination of two-way flow of information and individuals between nations resulted in both better science and improved international goodwill. In 1955, NSF took a comprehensive look at the role of the Federal Government in international science, and warned that it was important that “activities of the U.S. Government in the area of science not be tagged internationally as another weapon in our cold war arsenal.” NSF concluded that international scientific collaboration, based on considerations of scientific merit and the selflessness of the United States, could help ease international tensions, improve the image of the United States abroad, and help raise the standard of living among less-developed nations. scientific information originating overseas. NSF recognized that a Water Scarcity Advantage 1AC Water Scarcity Scenario First, Latin American water scarcity is coming to a head now – climate change, urbanization, lack of infrastructure, untreated waste water World Bank 13 – (“World Water Day: Latin America leads in water management but inequalities in access remain”, World Bank, 3/22/13, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/03/22/world-water-day-latinamerica-achievements-challenges)//BD A water-rich region, Latin America is home to nearly 31% of the world’s freshwater resources, but it also has large arid and semi-arid areas with recurring droughts common from Mexico to Chile. Water scarcity is expected to increase in several areas due to climate change, including in the Andes, where the melting glaciers will have a great effect on the water supply.¶ The full impact of these changes is still unknown, but experts agree that changes in water supply will be one of the first, and most dramatic, effects.¶ Consequently, preventing the region’s poorest and most vulnerable populations from falling back into poverty will need a regional yearly investment. Ede Ijjasz-Vasquez, World Bank Regional Director for Sustainable Development, estimates that climate change adapting measures have a cost of US$15 billion to US$20 billion a year for Latin America and the Caribbean.¶ “The poorest are most affected by droughts and floods, they are the least able to organize themselves against such occurrences, and have little access to financial tools, such as savings and insurance," Ijjasz explained.¶ Access to water services is still highly unequal. Rapid urbanization in the region means water and sanitation services have been heavily weighted towards the urban populations, to the detriment of interior, rural communities. But despite enormous progress over the past 20 years, 30 million Latin Americans are still without access to safe drinking water ..¶ Consequently, a key challenge for many Latin American countries is to further improve the way this scarce resource is managed. Infrastructure, such as storage and distribution systems, needs to be put into place, along with ways to allocate water across sectors to enable economic growth to be maintained in an environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive manner.¶ While the region has already met the Millennium Development Goal target for water, rural sanitation is lagging behind. Currently, 100 million people still lack access to any sanitation, with rural access at just 60%. Additionally, only 20% of waste water in Latin America is treated, leading to the pollution of rivers and coastal areas, which not only exposes the resident population to toxins and disease but also causes billions to be lost in potential tourism and real estate revenues. And, a HISTORIC water crisis is coming – Mexico will be unable to fulfill their treaty obligations, causing a diplomatic and relations disaster Brezosky 3/9 (“Water shortage in Valley again fuels tensions with Mexico,” pg online @ http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/environment/article/Water-shortage-in-Valleyagain-fuels-tensions-4342747.php //um-ef) Rio Grande Valley irrigation manager Jo Jo White remembers clearly how ugly things got about a decade ago, when drought left Mexico without the water it needed to supply what it owed the U.S. under a 1944 treaty. Fields on the U.S. side went dry. Angry farmers staged a “tractor-cade” at an international bridge. Local leaders put pressure on congressmen. Congressmen put pressure on the State Department. At its most severe, Mexico's water debt accumulated to 1.5 million acre-feet, or enough water to flood 1.5 million acres a foot deep. Abundant rains starting in 2003 did what months of diplomacy could not: refill Rio Grande reservoirs, providing Mexico with the water it needed to make good on its debt. The story of the Rio Grande is one of drought followed by deluge — and White and others predicted the Mexican water debt would return as soon as things the situation appears worse than ever, and this time cities are at risk. Farmers already are running out of water, and since irrigation water “carries” municipal water through the Valley's dried out. Going into the spring, vast system of irrigation canals, 13 cities and two municipal suppliers have gotten letters warning that their water may soon run out. “In view of current drought conditions, this letter is to advise you of the possibility that the District may run out of irrigation water allocation within the next 60 days,” White wrote in a letter to six cities in the Hidalgo and Cameron Counties Irrigation District No. 9. “We rely on irrigation water to maintain our delivery system and (keep) canals charged so as to convey your domestic, municipal and/or industrial water. In essence, (municipalities') water 'rides' on top of irrigation water.” Valley officials such as Leonardo Olivarez, city manager for Weslaco, are in crisis mode. They're attending emergency meetings with state officials, searching for water to buy and ways to pay for it, and seeing if they can tap old, brackish wells. “ There have been droughts before, but in terms of us running out of the ag water to transport our supply, I don't recollect that ever being an issue,” not there yet.... he said. “We have some identified options, but we're Basically, there's a team effort going on down here, but we really do need Mexico to release their water . Please send us water. Agua, por favor, agua hoy (Water, please, water today).” Donna farmer Jimmie Steidinger, who has been growing citrus, sugar cane, and grain on his property for 50 years, is leaving much of his land unplanted and letting many of his trees wither. “Out of 500 acres, I've got water for about 120 acres,” he said. “It's going to affect everybody down here. Every farmer and grower is going to be hurt by this thing.” During the last water shortage, Mexican officials said they simply didn't have any water to spare. Ricardo Alday, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, declined comment for this report. Texans only can hope their counterparts will find a way to share precious supplies this time around. Back to crisis mode To White, it's turning into a replay of the last crisis over Mexico's water debt . Under the 1944 treaty, the U.S. and Mexico share water from both the Colorado River and Rio Grande . But the treaty was written in a different era, and it so far hasn't held up against the needs of northern Mexico's rapidly expanding agricultural sector. “We're just starting the dry season, and our supplies are down to nothing,” White said. “It's a very, very serious situation. And what adds another drama to all this is if we run out of irrigation water, we lose our ability to get the water to the cities .” The situation didn't turn dire overnight. Historic flooding in 2010 filled Falcon Lake reservoir to record levels. But both 2011 and 2012 were dryer than anyone anticipated, and water that farmers thought would be delivered from Mexican tributaries didn't arrive. State water officials have been down for meetings to help municipalities find and purchase water to “push” their supplies. Options so far include re-digging old wells and teaming with farmers and other cities to purchase push water from areas with surplus water rights, though surpluses are getting harder to find. The city of Raymondville, for example, uses about 2 acre-feet of water a day. But that water has to travel 52 miles, Rio Grande Regional Water Authority Director Joe Barrera said. “They have to push 500 acre-feet 52 miles for Raymondville to take 2 acre-feet out of it,” he said. The easiest solution would be getting Mexico to release enough water to catch up on annual payments of about 350,000 acre-feet. By that measure, Mexico now is behind by about 410,000 acre-feet, which is enough to meet the municipal needs of the Valley, with a population of 1.1 million, for two years. State, local, and federal representatives are meeting with State Department officials force the issue. Monday, hoping to Five-year cycles But the treaty works in five-year cycles, not one-year cycles, said Sally Spener, spokeswoman for the U.S. side of the International Boundary and Water Commission, which oversees the water agreements. So Mexico in arrears. Since the current cycle started Oct. 25, 2010, technically is not Mexico has until Oct. 24, 2015, to complete delivery of a minimum annual average of 350,000 acre-feet, for a total of about 1.75 million acre-feet. “The treaty was specially crafted that way because the Rio Grande system was studied before the treaty provisions were agreed to, and it was noted it was a highly variable system,” Spener said. Mexican reservoirs are low, too — down to about 39 percent on average, she said. The commission and U.S. and Mexican governments , she added, are working on the issue . “It is not in the interest of the United States or Mexico for the deficit to continue to grow, and so we are proactively working together to address the needs to ensure treaty compliance,” Spener said. “And I think it's important to note that we're doing this halfway through the cycle, because we see we're halfway through with a deficit and we want to make sure that this issue is addressed early.” State Rep. Eddie Lucio III, D-San Benito, is confirmed for the State Department meeting, as are U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, and Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville. “The way water works is big rains, big storms, have bailed them out sometimes in the past and, we don't anticipate a lot of wet weather coming our way,” Lucio said. “Our segment, the U.S. side, has tried to be very good and courteous to Mexico in their times of need, and on 16 different occasions has delivered water to Mexico upon their request. I have yet in my office research been able to see where that has been reciprocated.” Last spring, a U.S. delivery of water to Mexico upset officials with the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, who said it would cause substantial U.S. losses. Vela said Mexico has a moral obligation to release more water. “Standing idly by while South Texas continues to suffer is no way to treat a neighbor,” he said. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, weighed in with a March 4 letter urging IBWC Commissioner Edward Drusina do his part to “resolve the immediate threat of water shortages for Texas users.” “Despite the concerted efforts by Texas officials to communicate with the IBWC and work toward a solution to address the growing water deficit, nothing has been resolved,” he wrote. In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Cornyn hinted at tougher tactics. “There are enough carrots and sticks available to the United States government to encourage Mexico to live up to its responsibilities, and I hope they are skillfully applied,” he said. And, that collapses cooperation, causes U.S. backlash and sparks resource wars and refugee crisis Homer-Dixon 98 (Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Programme – University of Toronto, World Security Challenges for a New Century, p. 342-343) Another possibility is that global environmental damage might increase the gap between rich and poor societies, with the poor then violently confronting the rich for a fairer share of the world’s wealth. Severe conflict may also arise from frustration with countries that do not go along with agreements to protect the global environment, or that “free-ride” by letting other countries absorb the costs of environmental protection. Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over more easily harvested resources in the Antarctic. Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental refugees, spilling across borders and disrupting relations among ethnic groups. Countries might fight among themselves because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution.6 A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers. Environmental change could in time cause a slow deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might open bitter divisions between classes and ethnic groups, corrode democratic institutions, and spawn revolutions and insurgencies. In general, many experts have the sense that environmental problems will “ratchet up” the level of stress within states and the international community, increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict—from war and rebellion to trade disputes—and undermining possibilities for cooperation. And, independently these water shortages causes extinction Marlow 01 (Maude, Spring) National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and IFG Committee on the Globalization of Water. “BLUE GOLD: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the World's Water Supply,” http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BlueGold.pdf. Perhaps the most devastating analysis of the global water crisis comes from hydrological engineer Michal Kravèík and his team of scientists at the Slovakia non-governmental organization (NGO) People and Water. Kravèík, who has a distinguished career with the Slovak Academy of Sciences, has studied the effect of urbanization, industrial agriculture, deforestation, dam construction, and infrastructure and paving on water systems in Slovakia and surrounding countries and has come up with an alarming finding. Destroying water's natural habitat not only creates a supply crisis for people and animals, it also dramatically diminishes the amount of available fresh water on the planet. Kravèík describes the hydrologic cycle of a drop of water. It must first evaporate from a plant, earth surface, swamp, river, lake or the sea, then fall back down to earth as precipitation. If the drop of water falls back onto a forest, lake, blade of grass, meadow or field, it cooperates with nature to return to the hydrologic cycle. "Right of domicile of a drop is one of the basic rights, a more serious right than human rights," says Kravèík. However, if the earth's surface is paved over, denuded of forests and meadows, and drained of natural springs and creeks, the drop will not form part of river basins and continental watersheds, where it is needed by people and animals, but head out to sea, where it will be stored. It is like rain falling onto a huge roof, or The consequent reduction in continental water basins results in reduced water evaporation from the earth's surface, and becomes a net loss, while the seas begin to rise. In Slovakia, the scientists found, for every 1 percent of roofing, paving, car parks and highways constructed, water supplies decrease in volume by more than 100 billion meters per year. Kravèík issues a dire warning about the growing number of what he calls the earth's "hot stains"—places already drained of water. The "drying out" of the earth will cause massive global warming, with the attendant extremes in weather: drought, decreased protection from the atmosphere, increased solar radiation, decreased biodiversity, melting of the polar icecaps, submersion of vast territories, massive continental desertification and, eventually, "global collapse." umbrella; everything underneath stays dry and the water runs off to the perimeter. And, Mexico Nano is key – they have the resources, the technology base and are a CRITICAL global model for water treatment and desal tech Nanoforumeula 2k13 (NanoforumEULA is a project funded by the European Commission as a part of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development., “Sector Diagnosis of Nanotechnology in Mexico,” pg online @ http://www.utwente.nl/mesaplus/nanoforumeula/nanotechnology%20in%20Mexico/ nanoforumeula_sector_diagnosis.pdf //um-ef) 4. COMPETITIVE AREAS OF MEXICO IN NANOTECHNOLOGY The most important advantages for investing and making nanoscience in Mexico are the availability of natural resources and human resources. There are some groups within the country that are internationally competitive, and there are other groups that are potentially competitive. However, these groups need to interact with each other and form a network to really achieve a real competitive advantage . The availability of minerals, such as silver, makes it very feasible to have applications of silver nanoparticles as bactericides, for example. Human resources, and in particular, students, have a good preparation, and should be encouraged to collaborate in other countries to gain more experience and knowledge. The demographic growth in Latin America and in particular in Mexico, opens the a big market for housing. Improving the quality of materials (thermally efficient concrete, UV absorber coatings and paints, water filters, etc) is one big market in Mexico that could also be applied worldwide. The research and study of low cost- efficient housing could be a big opportunity for European enterprises. Latin American and Mexican geographic orientation is especially favorable for using renewable energies such as solar cells and wind-powered energy. Seeking more efficient clean sources of energies is of global interest, and a collaborative research could lead to a solution to this problem . Latin America and Mexico hold a great part of the fresh water resources in the world. It is clear that research on the treatment of water for removing pollutants could be of great impact in supply of fresh water to the world is a matter of interest both Europe and Mexico-Latin America. to both Europe and LA. Assuring the In this region of the world there are sources of rare earth metals and elements that could be exploited if applications can be found . The design of new materials with these elements for applications could impact local economies, while giving competitive advantages to European industries. The biological diversity in Mexico and most Latin American countries is a big source of opportunities for biomimetic materials. The study of endemic organisms could inspire new materials based on nature mechanisms. 5. DISADVANTAGES AND WEAKENESS OF RESEARCH IN MEXICO Despite of the efforts, mostly from institutes in the north of the country, the Mexican academic community is mostly too far from the industrial needs. There is an imperative necessity of completing the cycle in which the research community uses its knowledge to develop products with applied added value, to promote industrial development and to boost spin off companies to finally have commercial products that can have some impact in the society . Another weakness of Mexican nanotechnology community is the lack of cohesion and of a global national research plan , and eventually a global EULatin American initiative. Most institutes are working in similar problems but without communication with the rest of country. The creation of National networks has been proposed. The mobility of students to make a more efficient use of the infrastructure was also a recurrent issue that should be solved. In this point, the EU community could collaborate with students’ mobility for using state-of-the art equipment. Global issues such as toxicology of nanomaterials and the social and ethical impact of nanotechnology are of interest for researchers in both Mexico and the EU. Some specific research topics were found to be of global interest, such as energy (nanostructured solar and fuel cells), biosensors, water treatment, etc. 6. SPECIFIC INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ACTIONS During the fact finding mission (FFM) carried out in Mexico, as part of the NANOFORUM EULA project, visiting four Mexican States and with the participation of a colleague from Argentina, a colleague from Brazil and five European experts we could identify the following topics as possible Specific International Cooperation Actions (SICAS): 1.- Nanotechnology for sustainable low-cost housing: construction materials based on nanotechnology. Scope/content: Throughout the world there is a high demand for low cost housing, and new materials based on nanotechnology can help to alleviate this problem building houses cheaper, in less time and according to the special needs imposed by weather conditions, water resources, electricity distribution, etc. The development of nanostructured composites with polymer, ceramic, cement and metal matrices is crucial to this proposal. Funding Scheme: Collaborative projects. Expected Impact: Support the EU and LAcountries to a new concept of low-cost housing, more environmentally friendly and according to the special needs, depending on the region. Another by product of this project is the development of housing for disaster areas such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floodings, tornados, etc., 2.- Research capabilities of renewable energy sources of EU and LA. Scope/content: Join forces to study and to develop sources of energy in LA and EU countries which do not depend on solid fuels. The use of solid fuels is having global consequences in the weather change, air pollution, atmospheric pollution, etc, Therefore, a joint effort is needed to investigate the following sources of energy in which new materials will certainly have an important impact: solar cells with more efficiency, wind energy, sea energy, hydrogen fuel cells, electric engines, etc. Mexico is demanding electricity for rural areas which can be alleviated through efficient solar cells. LA and EU countries have contact with the sea, so the use of wind and sea energy looks viable in these areas. Funding Scheme:Collaborative projects Expected Impact: Based on nanostructured materials, develop new sources of energy which can substitute solid fuels in EU and LA. This action will benefit rural and coastal areas as well as polluted cities in both regions of the world. 3.Remote operation and share of infrastructure remotely in nanotechnology: increasing mobility of students and researchers. Scope/content: Infrastructure to characterize nanomaterials is very expensive and several LA countries lack of it, so there is an increase in needs to use expensive infrastructure for research and for educational purposes. In order to provide access to this infrastructure it is important to develop mobility strategies for researchers and graduate students of LA ountries to Europe. Funding Scheme: Networks of Excellence. Expected Impact: Strengthen the knowledge and access to expensive characterization tools in nanotechnology. Catalyze collaborations among EU and LA. Train graduate students with better tools. Having educated people in different expensive techniques will make easier to justify the acquisition of expensive equipment in LA countries and break the vicious circle of infrastructure. 4.- Water treatment using nanotechnology at rural and industrial levels: Scope/Content: Potable water demands in the world are increasing not only for human consumption, but for industrial purposes. In several Latin American countries lack of water sanitation is a health problem. Nanotechnology can provide options for clean and cheap water treatments using nanoporous materials as molecular filters. Also , the removal of heavy metals from water can be achieved using nanostructures. In addition, water desalination can be achieved via membranes with nanoparticles. Funding Scheme: Collaborative projects Expected impact: The design of new porous nanomaterials as molecular sieves for cleaning water is a promising area of research which can benefit millions of people around the world. In LA countries and rural European areas, water treatment and water purification is imperative. At the industrial level, the removal of heavy metals form water is a task that should be carried out, in particular, when the legislation in some LA countries is not very strict. In addition, EU countries are facing this problem in the fish industry, mining, etc. In coastal areas desalination of water is one of the main problems that need to be solved. 5.- Adding value to metals and rare earth elements in LA by searching new applications of these materials at the nanostructured level. Scope/Content: LA countries are first producers of metals: Three LA countries are among the first ten silver producers (Peru, Mexico and Chile), the same happens with bismuth and cooper. In addition, there are rare earth elements that might have important applications in nanotechnological devices, for electronics, optical fibers, magnetic devices, etc. Therefore, it is becoming important from both regions to find new applications to elements that have a potential added value. For example, nanostructured silver could be used as a strong bactericide. Funding Scheme: Collaborative project. Expected Impact: Increasing the added value of materials that are produced in bulk by LA countries finding new nanotechnological applications benefits both regions (Europe and Latin America). Having the raw material is not enough, it is important to develop new applications for these materials at the nanoscale to commercialize new products and thus, create a synergic effect in which universities and industries of both parts are involved. 6.- Study of the risk assessment and socio-economic impacts of Nanotechnology. Scope/Content: Nanotechnolgy not only is going to have an impact in research areas and industries, but also in society, so it is important to study these possible effects by organizing multidisciplinary conferences in which EU and LA researchers get together to discuss the impact of nanotechnology in the everyday life of people in different communities at different levels of development. Funding Scheme: Coordination and Support Actions Expected Impact: Society deserves to be informed about nanotechnological applications; risks and benefits. There will be differences in legislation between the EU and LA countries, however at the global level both, societies need to have the same information and also legislators need to be informed about risks and benefits. Scientists form different backgrounds from different regions need to get together to discuss these issues. 7.- Molecular tectonics and biomimetic nanostructured materials . Scope/Content: biological systems produce inorganic materials which have amazing properties and the human understanding of these is scarce. The best strategy to mimic nature is to study it at the atomic and molecular level, therefore, nanosciences and nanotechnology plays a key role in this understanding. The organic diversity of LA countries is undeniable, though there are research groups in these countries working on biomimetic and molecular tectonics, the EU countries have more facilities which might help a collaboration in this issue. The understanding the role of specific proteins in the production of nanocrystals in plants, can help to understand the formation of kidney stones in humans for example. Copying what bone cells do to produce bone can be useful for bone transplants. Sea shells possess are very strong, can we copy these material at the atomic level? Funding Scheme: Collaborative project Expected Impact: Copying nature at the atomic level cannot only help to solve health problems, but also to understand a new way to build new materials or tp produce already known materials via other synthesis routes which are more ecologically friendly. The role of organic molecule in the production of new nanostructures is important for self assembly processes. 8.- Toxicology of nanomaterials. Scope/content: Funding Scheme: Collaborative project Expected Impact: 9.- Metrology and standards for nanomaterials Scope/content: Funding Scheme: Collaborative project Expected Impact: These ideas were the result of workshops and round tables, and were further analyzed and developed. However, more ideas were expressed during the activities, and a full listing can be found in Appendix. 7. EUROPEAN AND LATIN AMERICAN VISITORS EVALUATION The overall impression of the European experts with respect to the situation of the research on nanoscience and nanotechnology in Mexico is that there are, in general good quality research centers. However there is no industry-academy relationship . There is a lack of interest or lack of money from the industry to invest in the development of new materials, and produce added value products, for achieving real competitiveness worldwide. In addition, there is not enough support and information for researchers to file patents and/or become entrepreneurs. However, there is a good amount of There is also an increasing support from the Ministry of Economy (Secretaria de Economía), which could boost the development of nanotechnology in Mexico. The awareness of the problems of the society in the academic community. unique resources and the needs in Mexico, makes it a suitable place for becoming highly competitive in the development and research of nanoscience and nanotechnology for water treatment, construction materials and housing, and oil related processes. The specific recommendations for the development of Mexican science related to nanotechnology are: a) to establish an articulated national network; b) to have a national initiative or plan in terms of nanoscience and nanotechnology, and c) to encourage students mobility throughout Mexico and to the EU. Uniq: Water Scarcity in LA Now Water shortages in Latin America now– less than 20% have access, poverty, inequality Beeson 08 – Freelance journalist and campaign organizer focusing on politics and the environment in Latin America (Bart, “Latin America: Why There’s a Water Crisis in the Most Water-Rich Region”, North American Congress on Latin America, 5/1/2008, http://www.alternet.org/story/84145/latin_america%3A_why_there's_a_water_crisis_in_the_most_waterrich_region)//BD The 16th commemoration of World Water Day came and went in March with little fanfare. Francisco, a retired construction worker in El Salvador, didn't have much to celebrate anyway. When I spoke with him on the poor outskirts of San Salvador last December, water had not come out of his faucets for months. Despite making minimum wage, or about $161 a month, he still dutifully pays his $7 dollar water bill every month. "I keep paying the bill, because if my service is disconnected, then I'll have to pay even more to get it reconnected," he reasons.¶ Until the water company decides to fix the neighborhood's water pump, Francisco and his neighbors not only pay a useless water bill, but they are also forced to buy barrels of water from a tanker truck for an additional $1.50. "We don't have any other choice," he explains. "We have to have water."¶ Water troubles like Francisco's are common throughout Latin America, but the region's citizens are increasingly joining together to do something about it, channeling their frustration into action. Social organizing around water rights is not new in Latin America, but with growing problems of access and contamination, these movements have gained greater urgency, strength, and focus.¶ One of the most famous victories of this growing upsurge occurred in Uruguay, where organizations successfully organized a national referendum on water rights. In 2004, the Uruguayan government's negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) threatened to put the water system under private management. But the citizens' campaign forced the government to adopt a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing management would remain in the hands of the state and declaring water access a human right. Similar amendment efforts on the right to water have now emerged in Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Mexico. ¶ The Problem With Water¶ The state of the current world water crisis is well documented: 1.2 billion people are without access to safe water, 2.6 billion are without access to sanitation, and nearly 2 million children die every year because they don't have access to an adequate supply of clean water.¶ With the most annual rainfall of any region in the world, the water crisis in Latin America is particularly perplexing. Latin American countries face many of the same problems as countries with chronic fresh water shortages. And less than 20 percent have access to adequate sanitation systems.¶ So why do so many people lack access to clean water, when water abounds in the region? In 2006, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported the answer clearly: "The scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in power, poverty and inequality, not in physical availability."¶ And since Latin America has one of the most inequitable income distribution rates in the world, water access in the region is equally skewed. What's more, a 2006 World Bank study shows average water bills in Latin America are the highest of all regions in the developing world.¶ Poor people bear the brunt of problems associated with water contamination and "scarcity." Additional studies have found the poor pay more for clean water, spend more time and effort collecting water, and are much more likely to suffer health problems from contaminated water.¶ The UNDP report adds, "People suffering the most from the water and sanitation crisis -- poor people in general and poor women in particular -- often lack the political voice needed to assert their claims to water." Yet the water movements brewing in Latin America are beginning to make their collective political voice heard. Uniq: Water Crisis Now Water Crisis in Latin America –poverty, industrialization, city consumption, leakage, pollution from wastes Clarke and Barlow 04 - *Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, **Director of the Polaris Institute (Maude and Tony, “The Struggle for Latin America’s Water”, North American Congress on Latin America, July 2004, https://www.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/global-public-goods-1101/46052.html#authors)//BD Latin America is blessed with an abundance of fresh water. The region contains four of the world's 25 largest rivers - the Amazon, Paraná, Orinoco and Magdalena - and their combined run-off of 5,470 cubic miles almost equals the combined run-off of the other 21. Some of the world's large lakes are also located in Latin America, including Maracaibo in Venezuela, Titicaca in Peru and Bolivia, Poopo in Bolivia, and Buenos Aires, shared by Chile and Argentina. Twenty percent of global runoff - the renewable water source that constitutes our fresh water supply - comes from the Amazon Basin alone. With one-fifth of the globe's water resources, Brazil on its own has more water than any other country.1 The region as a whole has one of the highest per capita allocations of fresh water in the world - a little less than 110,500 cubic feet per person per year. Geography, pollution and social inequality, however, badly skew Latin Americans' access to water, and very few consume anything near their full personal allocation.¶ As a relatively parched country, Mexico has a miniscule potential supply of approximately 13,000 cubic feet per person. Natural desert is merging with a spreading human-induced desert over much of the Valley of Mexico, the country's cradle of pre-conquest civilization and present-day home of the nation's capital. Once called the "Venice of the New World" due to its being built atop a lake and intersected with canals, Mexico City is now sinking in on itself as it drains the last of its accessible aquifers from the lakebed below. This is a legacy of the conquering Spanish, who used slave labor to dismantle the more sustainable water systems of the original inhabitants.¶ In South America, human-induced salination is causing desertification in significant parts of Peru, Bolivia and northwestern Argentina. In total - factoring in the large natural deserts of Patagonia in southern Argentina and the Atacama in northern Chile - about 25% of Latin America is now arid or semi-arid. Most of the Caribbean is also fresh water deprived, since the islands are too small to have substantial rivers.2¶ Poor farming practices, unregulated industrialization and urban poverty have massively and negatively affected Latin America's water resources. Booming, concentrated populations in Latin America's mega-cities are devouring and contaminating their water supplies, forcing officials to seek out increasingly distant sources. In most large cities, over 50% of the water supply is lost through infrastructure leakage. Some cities lose almost 90% through leaky pipes.3 Mexico City now depends on aquifers for 70% of its water and is mining these underground sources up to 80 times faster than they are naturally replenished.4 Meanwhile, São Paulo is threatening residents with water rationing. The city is relying on sources farther and farther away, hiking the cost of delivery beyond many peoples' ability to pay for it. ¶ Throughout the region, water basins and aquatic habitats are routine dumpsites for garbage, mining effluent, and industrial and agricultural waste. Pollution in the waterways along the U.S.-Mexico border is so bad that some refer to it as a "2,000-mile Love Canal," in reference to an upstate New York neighborhood that was declared a federal emergency in 1978 because of chemical contamination. The region's heaviest polluter is Brazil - the country with the most water. Brazil allows massive chemical and industrial pollution, including mercury dumping from its gold mining industry. Only parts of Eastern Europe and China exceed Brazil's levels of waterway contamination . Most of Latin America's wastewater still flows untreated back into its rivers, lakes and canals.¶ Rampant poverty is another factor. After years of structural adjustment imposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, as a region , Latin America has the most inequitable income distribution in the world. Mirroring this is a pattern of tremendously unequal access to water. More than 130 million people have no safe drinking water in their homes, and only an estimated one out of every six persons enjoys adequate sanitation service.5 The situation worsens as policies favoring industrial agriculture drive millions of subsistence farmers into the cities' overpopulated slums every year.¶ The destruction of water sources, combined with inequitable access, has left most Latin Americans "water poor." And millions live without access to clean water at all. While the region's available resources could provide each person with close to 110,500 cubic feet of water every year, the average resident has access to only 1,010 cubic feet per year. This compares to North America's annual average of 4,160 cubic feet and Europe's 2,255.6¶ Uniq: Water Shortages Now Water Shortages in Latin America escalating now Beeson 2k8 (Burt, “Latin America: Why There's a Water Crisis in the Most Water-Rich Region,” pg online @ http://www.alternet.org/story/84145/latin_america%3A_why_there's_a_water_crisi s_in_the_most_water-rich_region //um-ef) Water troubles like Francisco's are common throughout Latin America, but the region's citizens are increasingly joining together to do something about it, channeling their frustration into action. Social organizing around water rights is not new in Latin America, but with growing problems of access and contamination, these movements have gained greater urgency, strength, and focus. One of the most famous victories of this growing upsurge occurred in Uruguay, where organizations successfully organized a national referendum on water rights. In 2004, the Uruguayan government's negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) threatened to put the water system under private management. But the citizens' campaign forced the government to adopt a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing management would remain in the hands of the state and declaring water access a human right. Similar amendment efforts on the right to water have now emerged in Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Mexico. The Problem With Water The state of the current world water crisis is well documented: 1.2 billion people are without access to safe water, 2.6 billion are without access to sanitation, and nearly 2 million children die every year because they don't have access to an adequate supply of clean water. With the most annual rainfall of any region in the world, the water crisis in Latin America is particularly perplexing. Latin American countries face many of the same problems as countries with chronic fresh water shortages. And less than 20 percent have access to adequate sanitation systems. So why do so many people lack access to clean water, when water abounds in the region? In 2006, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported the answer clearly: "The scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in power, poverty and inequality, not in physical availability." And since Latin America has one of the most inequitable income distribution rates in the world, water access in the region is equally skewed. What's more, a 2006 World Bank study shows average water bills in Latin America are the highest of all regions in the developing world. Poor people bear the brunt of problems associated with water contamination and "scarcity." Additional studies have found the poor pay more for clean water, spend more time and effort collecting water, and are much more likely to suffer health problems from contaminated water. The UNDP report adds, "People suffering the most from the water and sanitation crisis -- poor people in general and poor women in particular -often lack the political voice needed to assert their claims to water." Yet the water movements brewing in Latin America are beginning to make their collective political voice heard. Coop Key: Water Nanotech key to water purification and supply—collaboration key Brum et al 09 (A. Brum*, P. Herrman**, * director of the Brazilian Synchrotron Light Laboratory; Senior associate at the IBSA, ** Researcher at Embrapa Agricultural Instrumentation, “Developing world advances nanotech for clean water”, 06/05, 2009, http://www.scidev.net/global/water/opinion/developing-world-advancesnanotech-for-clean-water.html//VS) Water shortages, unreliable water supplies and poor water quality are major obstacles to sustainable development. Millions of children die each year due to water shortages or exposure to water-related diseases. And the UN predicts that by 2025, more than one third of the world's population — over 3.5 billion people — will face severe water shortages.¶ Nanotechnology can help alleviate these problems by offering new techniques and equipment for conducting water research as well as new purification methods.¶ While some nanotech water treatments are being developed in Europe, Japan and the United States — researchers at US-based Rice University have, for example, created a nano-based product to remove arsenic from water supplies (see 'Nanotechnology for clean water: Facts and figures') — developing countries too are investing in research to harness nanotechnology for clean water. Joint action ¶ The IBSA nanotechnology initiative — a collaborative how South-South collaboration can promote the use of nanotechnology for clean water and points to progress being made in these countries.¶ IBSA identifies three areas of research as high priority: nanofiltration and ultrafiltration membranes; nano-based water purification systems for remote and rural areas; and carbon nanogels, nanotubes and nanofibres.¶ While carbon nanotube projects are still in the early phases of planning, progress in the other priority areas is well under way.¶ In the field of nanofiltration, South Africa's North-West University has built a treatment plant that incorporates ultrafiltration membranes to clean brackish groundwater in a ruralvillage. The plant removes pollutants such as chloride, nitrate, phosphate and sulphate to produce safe drinking water for domestic and community use(see 'Community ownership is key to nanotech water projects').¶ In Brazil the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Embrapa, is hoping to develop a biodigestion system using nanofilters to clean irrigation research and development programme between the Departments of Science and Technology in India, Brazil and South Africa — shows supplies and, eventually, make the water safe for drinking .Biodigestion, without nanofilters, is already used to treat sewage in both rural and urban areas.¶ Embrapa is also developing magnetic nanoparticles to treat water contaminated with pesticides. This class of technology seems especially suitable for removing organic pollutants, salts and heavy metals from liquids. Solvency: Nano Solves Water in LA Nanotechnology resolves water access—Latin America key Singer et al 07 Singer-director of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, codirector of the Canadian Program in Genomics and Global Health; Daar-codirector of the Canadian Program in Genomics and Global Health; Buentello-Researcher and graduate student at University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics and the Canadian Program in Genomics and Global Health (Peter A., Abdallah S., Fabio S., “Harnessing Nanotechnology to Improve Global Equity”, 2007, http://www.issues.org/21.4/singer.html//VS) Water treatment and remediation . One-sixth of the world’s population lacks access to safe water supplies; one-third of the population Latin America has no clean water ; and 2 million children die each year can provide inexpensive, portable, and easily cleaned systems that purify, detoxify, and desalinate water more efficiently than do conventional bacterial and viral filters. Nanofilter systems consist of “intelligent” membranes that can be designed to filter out bacteria, viruses, and the great majority of water contaminants. Nanoporous zeolites, attapulgite clays (which can bind large numbers of bacteria and toxins), and nanoporous polymers (which can bind 100,000 times more organic contaminants than can activated carbon) can all be used for water purification.¶ Nanomagnets, also known as “magnetic nanoparticles” and “magnetic nanospheres,” when coated with different compounds that have a selective affinity for diverse contaminating substances, can be used to remove pollutants from water. For example, nanomagnets coated with chitosan, a readily available substance derived from the exoskeleton of crabs and shrimps that is currently used in cosmetics and medications, can be used to remove oil and other organic pollutants from aqueous environments. Brazilian researchers have developed superparamagnetic nanoparticles that, coated with polymers, can be spread over a wide area in dustlike form; these modified nanomagnets would readily bind to the pollutant and could then be recovered with a magnetic pump. Because of the size of the nanoparticles and their high affinity for the contaminating agents, almost 100 percent of the pollutant would be removed . Finally, the magnetic nanoparticles and the polluting agents would be separated, allowing for the reuse of the magnetic nanoparticles and for the recycling of the pollutants. Also, magnetite nanoparticles combined with citric acid, which binds metallic ions with high affinity, can be used to remove heavy metals from soil and water. of rural areas in Africa, Asia, and from water-related diseases, such as cholera, typhoid, and schistosomiasis. Nanotechnology Solvency: Water Pathogens Nanotech key to adaptable filtration—solves water purity Hillie 06 (T. Hillie, Chair, Nanotechnology and Metrology Group Leader, Nanometrology, at the Council on Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa, “nanotechnology, water & development”, 2006, http://www.merid.org/~/media/Files/Projects/nanowaterworkshop/NanoWaterPaperFinal.ashx//VS) Researchers are using nanomaterials (e.g., carbon nanotubes, alumina¶ fibers) to build structures that have controlled shapes, density, and¶ dimensions for specific filtration applications. For instance, researchers¶ have developed and tested cylindrical membranes with pores tiny¶ enough to filter out the smallest organisms.¶ Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the U.S. and Banaras Hindu University52¶ in India devised a simple method to produce carbon nanotube filters that¶ efficiently remove micro- to nanoscale contaminants from water. Made¶ entirely of carbon nanotubes, the filters are easily manufactured using a¶ novel method for controlling the cylindrical geometry of the structure.¶ Carbon nanotube filters offer a level of precision suitable for different ¶ applications as they can remove 25-nanometer-sized polio viruses from¶ water as well as larger pathogens ¶ such as E. coli and Staphylococcus¶ aureus bacteria. The nanotube¶ based water filters were found to¶ filter bacteria and viruses and were¶ more resilient and reusable than¶ conventional membrane filters. The¶ filters were reusable and could be¶ cleaned by heating the nanotube¶ filter or purging. Nano-engineered¶ membranes allowed water to flow ¶ through the membrane faster than¶ through conventional filters due to¶ the straighter membranes than¶ conventional filters.53 Solvency: Desal And, Nano Breakthroughs are essential for effective desalination Hinkebein 2k4 (Thomas Hinkebein, Sandia National Laboratories, “Desalination: Limitations and Challenges,” pg online @ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83737/ //um-ef) The implementation of novel technologies in a tight financial market requires that any new technology be completely proven in order to achieve its full deployment. Completely proving a new technology requires that this technology proceed through the demonstration stage. By carrying only the most promising research to the next and more costly levels, a cost-effective research program is constructed. The other part of desalination that ends up being a problem is that we function in an environment where the rates of return are incredibly small. We have single-digit rates of return for most water utilities. The end result is that when you think about how it is that we are going to get new technologies deployed, you need to, as part of some kind of government program, establish some method of assisting with the deployment of new technologies. In the low-risk, low-reward environment, there is little driving force for utilities to try field processes on their own. The end result is that the only way you get a lot of new technologies in the field is by having demonstration projects. The program that we have been trying to move forward with the government, with both congressional and administration support, is to have a demonstration facility that actually helps with this high end of moving the technologies to the field, which implies that there is a huge amount of work that goes on underneath that. Figure 4.10 provides a view of the comprehensive implementation strategy. The Roadmap actually sits in the upper left-hand corner, where new technologies are developed. Activity is also needed that deals with characterizing the resource. Many implementation issues such as owners' rights, states' rights, and regulatory issues must be dealt with. The whole idea of commercializing a new venture requires an additional level of interaction. To deploy any of these strategies on a global scale, they will have to be advanced through the process. Don Burland, of the National Science Foundation, remarked that the discontinuity illustrated in Figure 4.1 is caused by changing technologies. He wondered if Dr. Hinkebein knew of any technologies that can bring the trajectory down in that way. Dr. Hinkebein said such potential future advancements will be in the area of cross-fertilization technologies currently in existence for other applications. These technologies are now being looked at for water applications. He said that broadly examining all separation technologies many lead to solutions for the future. In particular, Hinkebein thought recent advances in understanding the nanometer scale might bring such improvements . He said that when you start to look at the energy requirements to move water through a RO membrane, there is a minimum amount of energy required. Currently this is only about three to five times the minimum energy in the typical RO membrane. Therefore, there is still room for growth, but the methods to make that growth occur will have to be evolutionary in scope, and not revolutionary. Dr. Hinkebein also said that with nanotechnology, it becomes possible to move ionic species very small distances. This presents the potential for separating fresh water and concentrate in a different kind of environment where the minimum energy is constrained only by how small the flow field can be made . Solvency: Microsensors Nanotechnology key to micro sensors—solves water access Brum et al 09 (A. Brum*, P. Herrman**, * director of the Brazilian Synchrotron Light Laboratory; Senior associate at the IBSA, ** Researcher at Embrapa Agricultural Instrumentation, “Developing world advances nanotech for clean water”, 06/05, 2009, http://www.scidev.net/global/water/opinion/developing-world-advancesnanotech-for-clean-water.html//VS) Another area of interest to IBSA is to combine micro- and nano-fabrication technology with new sensor technology to create small, disposable, portable, and highly accurate sensors for detecting chemicals and biochemicals in water.¶ The potential impact of nanotechnology on the sensor market is huge in the developing and developed world alike. For example, industry analyst NanoMarkets reports that nanotech sensors generated global revenues of US$2.7 billion in 2008 and estimates it will reach US$7.2 billion in 2012. ¶ In Brazil, The National Nanotechnology Laboratory Applied to Agribusiness, housed at Embrapa's agricultural instrumentation unit in São Paulo, has developed a cheap optical sensor incorporating nano-assembled films to evaluate the acidity of natural water supplies. And 'electronic tongues' —another kind of polymer sensor be used to distinguish between different mineral waters and between pure water and water contaminated by organic matter.¶ Nanotechnology can have a great impact on our lives, promising benefits and, perhaps, risks. We have to consider both if we are to exploit this new technology to its full extent.¶ Developing countries have as much to contribute as more developed regions of the world, and while much research remains to be done, the IBSA initiative shows we are already on the way to finding nano-based solutions to clean water. developed at Embrapa — can Solvency: Water Access Nanotech solves water access Science Daily 05 (Science Daily Magazine, “Nanotechnology's Miniature Answers To Developing World's Biggest Problems”, 05/12/2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512120050.htm//VS) Water treatment is third-ranked by the panel. "One-sixth of the world's population lacks access to safe water supplies," says Dr. Salamanca-Buentello.¶ "More than one third of the population of rural areas in Africa, Asia, and Latin America has no clean water, and two million children die each year from water-related diseases, such as diarrhea, cholera, typhoid, and schistosomiasis, which result from a lack of adequate water sources and sanitation."¶ Nano-membranes and nano-clays are inexpensive, portable and easily cleaned systems that purify, detoxify and desalinate water more efficiently than conventional bacterial and viral filters. Researchers also have developed a method of large-scale production of carbon nano-tube filters for water quality improvement.¶ Other water applications include systems (based on titanium dioxide and on magnetic nano-particles) that decompose organic pollutants and remove salts and heavy metals from liquids, enabling the use of heavily contaminated and salt water for irrigation and drinking. Several of the contaminating substances retrieved could then be easily recycled. Impacts: Water Wars Water wars outweighs and turns economy – constrains economic growth, leads to war Lean 09 – Leading British environmental correspondent for the Telegraph (Geoffrey, “Water scarcity ‘now bigger threat than financial crisis’”, The Independent, 3/15/2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climatechange/water-scarcity-now-bigger-threat-than-financial-crisis-1645358.html)//BD Humanity is facing "water bankruptcy" as a result of a crisis even greater than the financial meltdown now destabilising the global economy, two authoritative new reports show. They add that it is already beginning to take effect, and there will be no way of bailing the earth out of water scarcity.¶ The two reports – one by the world's foremost international economic forum and the other by 24 United Nations agencies – presage the opening tomorrow of the most important conference on the looming crisis for three years. The World Water Forum, which will be attended by 20,000 people in Istanbul, will hear stark warnings of how half the world's population will be affected by water shortages in just 20 years' time, with millions dying and increasing conflicts over dwindling resources.¶ A report by the World Economic Forum, which runs the annual Davos meetings of the international business and financial elite, says that lack of water, will "soon tear into various parts of the global economic system" and "start to emerge as a headline geopolitical issue".¶ It adds: "The financial crisis gives us a stark warning of what can happen if known economic risks are left to fester. We are living in a water 'bubble' as unsustainable and fragile as that which precipitated the collapse in world financial markets. We are now on the verge of bankruptcy in many places with no way of paying the debt back." ¶ The Earth – a blue-green oasis in the limitless black desert of space – has a finite stock of water. There is precisely the same amount of it on the planet as there was in the age of the dinosaurs, and the world's population of more than 6.7 billion people has to share the same quantity as the 300 million global inhabitants of Roman times .¶ Water use has been growing far faster than the number of people. During the 20th century the world population increased fourfold, but the amount of freshwater that it used increased nine times over. Already 2.8 billion people live in areas of high water stress, the report calculates, and this will rise to 3.9 billion – more than half the expected population of the world – by 2030. By that time, water scarcity could cut world harvests by 30 per cent – equivalent to all the grain grown in the US and India – even as human numbers and appetites increase.¶ Some 60 per cent of China's 669 cities are already short of water. The huge Yellow River is now left with only 10 per cent of its natural flow, sometimes failing to reach the sea altogether. And the glaciers of the Himalayas, which act as gigantic water banks supplying two billion people in Asia, are melting ever faster as global warming accelerates. Meanwhile devastating droughts are crippling Australia and Texas. ¶ The World Water Development Report, compiled by 24 UN agencies under the auspices of Unesco, adds that shortages are already beginning to constrain economic growth in areas as diverse and California, China, Australia, India and Indonesia. The report, which will be published tomorrow, also expects water conflicts to break out in the Middle East, Haiti, Sri Lanka, Colombia and other countries.¶ "Conflicts about water can occur at all scales," it warns. "Hydrological shocks" brought about by climate change are likely to "increase the risk of major national and international security threats". 2AC: Water k Relations/Diplomacy Water supply key to US-Mexico relations – requires diplomacy, could result in water wars, poor crops in the region Smith 01 – Bureau Chief for the Los Angeles times in Mexico City (James, “Water Woes Strain U.S.-Mexico Relations”, Los Angeles Times, 6/17/2001, pg. Proquest)//BD Rio Bravo, Mexico-The Anzalduas Canal should be brimming with water this spring, irrigating thousands of acres of rich Mexican farmland south of the Rio Grande along the Texas border.¶ Instead, one of the largest canals in Latin America holds only a foot or two of stagnant water, choked with reeds and old tires.¶ The pathetic conduit is one sign of a water shortage so severe that for the first time in recorded history, the Rio Grande stopped flowing into the Gulf of Mexico in February. The sluggish river has so much silt in it that it has become a new informal border crossing.¶ The water shortage on both sides of the border is an early, urgent test for 21st century U.S.Mexican diplomacy: managing scarce natural resources in one of North America's fastest-growing regions.¶ A flurry of diplomatic initiatives may yet turn the water crisis into a showcase of crossborder cooperation, producing a new approach to joint long-term planning and management of the 1,250-mile river watershed from El Paso to the gulf. Or it could degenerate into a bitter water war between southern Texas and northeastern Mexico.¶ At the heart of the dispute is a 1944 treaty that calls for Mexico to give the United States one-third of the water flowing from its tributaries into the Rio Grande-and a minimum of 350,000 acre-feet of water per year. (An acre-foot is enough water to cover one acre a foot deep.) Mexico blames severe drought for its failure to meet its quotas since 1994. Mexico now owes the United States about 1.1 million acre-feet.¶ Neither Mexican nor Texas farmers accept the drought explanation.¶ They blame inept water management and uncontrolled growth hundreds of miles higher up the Rio Grande watershed, in the distant western Sierra Madre mountains of Mexico's Chihuahua state.¶ Certainly water use has exploded along with population growth in both the United States and Mexico. When the treaty was signed in 1944, the border region population was just below 1 million. Now it is 11 million-and it could surge to 24 million by 2020.¶ The impact is worst in Texas' lower Rio Grande Valley and Mexico's Tamaulipas state.¶ Leaders of the 40,000 farmers in Tamaulipas last month demanded a $100-per-acre payment to offset poor crops that resulted from the lack of water. With as many as 500,000 acres affected, the claim could be worth $50 million.¶ The Texas farmers, who claim annual losses of $400 million or more because of the water shortage, are furious that the U.S. government let Mexico get away with running up such a huge water debt during the 1990s. The debt looks almost impossible to repay fully by the October 2002 deadline when the current five-year treaty cycle ends.¶ The new Mexican and U.S. administrations have made progress in recent months. President George W. Bush, a Texan, pressed President Vicente Fox to do something to help. In March, Mexican and U.S. officials signed a deal in Washington to nearly double Mexico's water payments this year-600,000 acre-feet of Rio Grande basin water by July 31, or by Sept. 30 if drought conditions are severe. ¶ Even if Mexico manages to comply, Texas farmers will still be short of water. And the larger payment will leave even less water for downstream Mexican farmers.¶ The impact is plain in the fields of withered, foot-tall sorghum plants around the Anzalduas Canal's main channel in the town of Rio Bravo, between the cities of Reynosa and Matamoros.¶ Farmer Javier Cantu said his 500 acres normally yield as many as 1.6 tons of sorghum grain per acre. Now he will be lucky to get half that much from some acreage. He predicts a loss of about $120 per acre. ¶ "This year I won't even get close to covering my costs," Cantu said.¶ Jaime Garza, a water consultant for a cooperative in Rio Bravo, said average yields are likely to be down 40 percent this year because of lack of water.¶ Juan Minana, head of the farmers council for the worst-affected Mexican water district, looks upstream for the blame, to the Rio Conchos in Chihuahua, where "the uses of water have been constantly increased." ¶ Texas farmers are hurting as well. Jimmie Steidinger, a farmer in Donna who grows what may be the sweetest grapefruits in Texas, proudly took a visitor through his immaculate, laser-leveled fruit fields. He has invested heavily in tubing and other new irrigation technology to reduce waste. ¶ The water shortage forced him to buy $38,000 in water rights last year, cutting profits as much as 25 percent. "We've always had two things against us: the weather and the markets," Steidinger said. "Now we've got a third, unnecessary risk factor: water. This could break a lot of farmers, and some have already gone under." ¶ Jo Jo White, head of the water district around Mercedes, Texas, said a consultant's study found that Mexico has no real drought, just overuse in the Conchos watershed. "It's been a big hickey put on our economy down here, and south Texas already is a poor part of the United States," White said.¶ At their summit in February, Fox and Bush made the water dispute a priority. Their negotiators agreed a month later not only to speed Mexican deliveries but also to begin work on a joint management plan for the Rio Grande basin. ¶ Thus the crisis could prove the catalyst for a new approach to managing border resources.¶ Enrique Berruga, Mexico's deputy foreign secretary for North America, said that beyond paying back more water, "we said to the U.S. that we want to work together on an issue critical to both countries-and that means not just water, but planning on the border."¶ Management of the Rio Grande water treaty is in the hands of the International Boundary and Water Commission, based in the desert cities of Juarez and El Paso, a stone's throw from each other on the river.¶ Manuel Ybarra, head of international affairs for the commission's U.S. office, said cooperation has improved since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994. Before then, " our relationship with Mexico was pretty much territorial. In that atmosphere, it was difficult to have a strong international management system." 2AC Heavy Metal Add-on A. Nano in Latin America Solves Heavy Metal Removal Singer et al 07 Singer-director of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, codirector of the Canadian Program in Genomics and Global Health; Daar-codirector of the Canadian Program in Genomics and Global Health; Buentello-Researcher and graduate student at University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics and the Canadian Program in Genomics and Global Health (Peter A., Abdallah S., Fabio S., “Harnessing Nanotechnology to Improve Global Equity”, 2007, http://www.issues.org/21.4/singer.html//VS) Water treatment and remediation . One-sixth of the world’s population lacks access to safe water supplies; one-third of the population Latin America has no clean water ; and 2 million children die each year from waterrelated diseases, such as cholera, typhoid, and schistosomiasis. Nanotechnology can provide inexpensive, portable, and easily cleaned systems that purify, detoxify, and desalinate water more efficiently than do conventional bacterial and viral filters. of rural areas in Africa, Asia, and Nanofilter systems consist of “intelligent” membranes that can be designed to filter out bacteria, viruses, and the great majority of water contaminants. Nanoporous zeolites, attapulgite clays (which can bind large numbers of bacteria and toxins), and nanoporous polymers (which can bind 100,000 times more organic contaminants than can activated carbon) can all be used for water purification. ¶ Nanomagnets, also known as “magnetic nanoparticles” and “magnetic nanospheres,” when coated with different compounds that have a selective affinity for diverse contaminating substances, can be used to remove pollutants from water. For example, nanomagnets coated with chitosan, a readily available substance derived from the exoskeleton of crabs and shrimps that is currently used in cosmetics and medications, can be used to remove oil and other organic pollutants from aqueous environments. Brazilian researchers have developed superparamagnetic nanoparticles that, coated with polymers, can be spread over a wide area in dustlike form; these modified nanomagnets would readily bind to the pollutant and could then be recovered with a magnetic pump. Because of the size of the nanoparticles and their high affinity for the contaminating agents, almost 100 percent of the pollutant would be removed. Finally, the magnetic nanoparticles and the polluting agents would be separated, allowing for the reuse of the magnetic nanoparticles and for the recycling of the pollutants. Also, magnetite nanoparticles combined with citric acid, which binds metallic ions with high affinity, can heavy metals from soil and water. be used to remove 2AC Aquifers Add-on Water problems now – lack of sanitation, poor water quality, pollution in lakes and aquifers World Water Council 06 - an international organization that works towards increasing global awareness on water issues (“Water Problems in Latin America”, 4th World Water Forum, 2006, http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/News/WWC_News/water_problems_22.03.04.pdf)//BD 77 million people lack access to safe water: The region has made tremendous advances in recent ¶ decades. The percentage of people in Latin America and the Caribbean with direct access to water has ¶ increased from 33 percent of the population in 1960 to 85 percent by 2000. This still leaves 77 million ¶ people without a water connection in their homes – 51 million rural residents and 26 million urban ¶ ones. ¶ 100 million people lack access to sanitation: Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of people in ¶ Latin American and the Caribbean connected to sanitation services grew from 14 percent of 49 percent ¶ of the population. This still leaves an estimated 256 million people dependent on latrines and septic ¶ tanks only, and 100 million people with absolutely no access to any safe sanitation. ¶ Lack of treatment of sanitation wastes: Sewage from less than 14 percent of houses is treated at ¶ sanitation plants, greatly increasing the chances of ecological damages “down the line,” as the ¶ untreated sewage enters rivers, lakes, underground aquifers and oceans. ¶ Large water pricing inequality: In the year 2000, statistics show that poor people paid between 1.5 ¶ and 2.8 times more for their water than non-poor families, in real terms, and a much higher percentage ¶ of their income for water. The quality of the water received by the poor was also much worse, ¶ increasing the danger that the diarrheal diseases that could kill them would hit their children. ¶ Major financial constraints in rich, middle income and poor Western Hemispheric nations alike ¶ restrict the abilities of national and local governments to address all of their water needs ¶ simultaneously, forcing hard choices that must involve “stakeholders,” that is, those who use the water ¶ for drinking, sanitation, industry and agriculture. Some alternatives have included the establishment of solidarity funds, public-private partnerships, community participation and other alternative financial ¶ schemes. Water Problems in Latin America ¶ Page 2¶ Ground water: Major aquifers in the western United States, Mexico and in South America are being ¶ threatened by overexploitation and pollution. In South America, 40-60 percent of water comes from ¶ aquifers that are facing evergrowing pollution from over-mining and agriculture. In Mexico, 102 of ¶ the nation’s 653 aquifers are overused, the main source of water for 65 percent of the population. In ¶ some areas, farmers have had to switch from water-intensive cotton to less profitable grain crops used ¶ to feed cattle, because the aquifers no longer produced sufficient water to grow cotton. ¶ Lakes and River Pollution – Many major lakes and river basins from North to South America are ¶ under great strain from growing populations and decades of agricultural and industrial run-off, ¶ including the Great Lakes, Lake Chapala in Mexico 2AC Run-off Add-on A. Failure to Clean Water Causes Dangerous Runoff, Aquifer and Ocean Pollution World Water Council 06 - an international organization that works towards increasing global awareness on water issues (“Water Problems in Latin America”, 4th World Water Forum, 2006, http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/News/WWC_News/water_problems_22.03.04.pdf)//BD 77 million people lack access to safe water: The region has made tremendous advances in recent ¶ decades. The percentage of people in Latin America and the Caribbean with direct access to water has ¶ increased from 33 percent of the population in 1960 to 85 percent by 2000. This still leaves 77 million ¶ people without a water connection in their homes – 51 million rural residents and 26 million urban ¶ ones. ¶ 100 million people lack access to sanitation: Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of people in ¶ Latin American and the Caribbean connected to sanitation services grew from 14 percent of 49 percent ¶ of the population. This still leaves an estimated 256 million people dependent on latrines and septic ¶ tanks only, and 100 million people with absolutely no access to any safe sanitation. ¶ Lack of treatment of sanitation wastes: Sewage from less than 14 percent of houses is treated at ¶ sanitation plants, greatly increasing the chances of ecological damages “down the line,” as the ¶ untreated sewage enters rivers, lakes, underground aquifers and oceans. ¶ Large water pricing inequality: In the year 2000, statistics show that poor people paid between 1.5 ¶ and 2.8 times more for their water than non-poor families, in real terms, and a much higher percentage ¶ of their income for water. The quality of the water received by the poor was also much worse, ¶ increasing the danger that the diarrheal diseases that could kill them would hit their children. ¶ Major financial constraints in rich, middle income and poor Western Hemispheric nations alike ¶ restrict the abilities of national and local governments to address all of their water needs ¶ simultaneously, forcing hard choices that must involve “stakeholders,” that is, those who use the water ¶ for drinking, sanitation, industry and agriculture. Some alternatives have included the establishment of solidarity funds, public-private partnerships, community participation and other alternative financial ¶ schemes. Water Problems in Latin America ¶ Page 2¶ Ground water: Major aquifers in the western United States, Mexico and in South America are being ¶ threatened by overexploitation and pollution. In South America, 40-60 percent of water comes from ¶ aquifers that are facing evergrowing pollution from over-mining and agriculture. In Mexico, 102 of ¶ the nation’s 653 aquifers are overused, the main source of water for 65 percent of the population. In ¶ some areas, farmers have had to switch from water-intensive cotton to less profitable grain crops used ¶ to feed cattle, because the aquifers no longer produced sufficient water to grow cotton. ¶ Lakes and River Pollution – Many major lakes and river basins from North to South America are ¶ under great strain from growing populations and decades of agricultural and industrial run-off, ¶ including the Great Lakes, Lake Chapala in Mexico B. Extinction Coyne and Hoekstra 7 – *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, **Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopie-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying) But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive – which, along with temperature change, with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs – a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems – those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace – has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic , it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all. kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience – not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns 2AC Renewable Energy Add-on A) Mexico Nano is a CRITICAL model for Global renewable energy development – integration is key Nanoforumeula 2k13 (NanoforumEULA is a project funded by the European Commission as a part of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development., “Sector Diagnosis of Nanotechnology in Mexico,” pg online @ http://www.utwente.nl/mesaplus/nanoforumeula/nanotechnology%20in%20Mexico/ nanoforumeula_sector_diagnosis.pdf //um-ef) 4. COMPETITIVE AREAS OF MEXICO IN NANOTECHNOLOGY The most important advantages for investing and making nanoscience in Mexico are the availability of natural resources and human resources. There are some groups within the country that are internationally competitive, and there are other groups that are potentially competitive. However, these groups need to interact with each other and form a network to really achieve a real competitive advantage . The availability of minerals, such as silver, makes it very feasible to have applications of silver nanoparticles as bactericides, for example. Human resources, and in particular, students, have a good preparation, and should be encouraged to collaborate in other countries to gain more experience and knowledge. The demographic growth in Latin America and in particular in Mexico, opens the a big market for housing. Improving the quality of materials (thermally efficient concrete, UV absorber coatings and paints, water filters, etc) is one big market in Mexico that could also be applied worldwide. The research and study of low cost- efficient housing could be a big opportunity for European enterprises. Latin American and Mexican geographic orientation is especially favorable for using renewable energies such as solar cells and wind-powered energy. Seeking more efficient clean sources of energies is of global interest, and a collaborative research could lead to a solution to this problem . Diseases Advantage 1AC Diseases Scenario Markets = Ineffective Regulations key – limits on development solve the environment and poverty Foladori and Invernizzi 7 (Guillermo Foladori and Noela Invernizzi, ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies, “Nanotechnologies in Latin America,” December 2007, AC) Unfortunately, most developing countries are getting on board of the bandwagon¶ when it comes to the use of nanotechnologies for development, without discussing¶ the ways and the social and economic implications. In the entire world, ¶ but particularly in Latin America, the notion of competitiveness is the one regulating¶ the investment rate in nanotechnology research. To guarantee international¶ competitiveness in the years to come it is necessary to endorse nanotechnology¶ development. But we have to keep in our minds that competitiveness is just one¶ aspect and we are not sure if it is the most important for development.¶ The main critic of the reductionist notion of development in economic terms¶ came from scholars that refer to the terms of inequity and social differentiation. A¶ country can increase its technological development thus increasing its economic¶ indicators without improving the poverty indicators and/or social inequality. And,¶ however, inequality is a central issue embedded in the modern discourse of democracy¶ and modernity. The case of nanotechnology is illustrative in this regard.¶ The United States of America (US), the country with the highest amounts of resources¶ allocated into the development of nanotechnologies, sets between a fourth ¶ and a third of its public investment into R&D of nanotechnology for the military.¶ This stimulates other countries to do the same; the question is if under this trend ¶ nanotechnologies would indeed serve to encourage equity or to decrease poverty. ¶ Another issue to observe is the fact that most of the patents in nanotechnology are¶ owned by big transnational corporations or US based universities which are also¶ financed by these corporations. We think is valid to ask if under these circumstances¶ nanotechnologies will reduce social inequality and poverty in Latin America¶ and the world.¶ The environmental critique to the notion of development warned about how¶ conventional economics sees as a positive sign of growth the selling of non-renewable¶ resources, which in material terms means an irreparable lost. It also warned¶ about how environmental pollution represents reposition expenditures having thus¶ a positive connotation. In this regard nanotechnologies have also to provide further¶ answers. Despite there is very little research about the potential effects of nanotechnology¶ to the environment and human health, products containing nanocomponents¶ and production processes using nanotechnology, are rapidly¶ becoming part of market transactions. It is clear that the market and not the reflexive¶ attitude on these new technologies sets the pace for their development.¶ The humanists critique to economic development asked itself about the limits¶ of technological development. Is technology development a race without ending?¶ 18¶ And, if this is true, what is the purpose? Nanotechnologies have to face this issue¶ as well. One of the areas of development within nanotechnology research is the¶ improvement of the human body; the possibility of hybridizing non-biological and¶ biological components is a matter of extensive research. The tranhumanists positions¶ see nanotechnology as the tool to liberate the human from the attachments¶ imposed by nature. These ideas have also to be considered in the development debate.¶ In the modern world the arena and the agenda to compete in the market are set ¶ by the business sector. At the the rules of science and technology¶ for their applications. This seems to be the case of nanotechnology in Latin¶ America. After the U.S. launched its National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)¶ in 2001, many Latin American countries jumped on the bandwagon of competitiveness¶ without creating the subjective social conditions and without considering¶ their particular social context to prepare themselves for a transition into the use of¶ nanotechnology same time, it dictates for development. Fed gov key to private sector innovation and regulations on development Foladori and Invernizzi 7 (Guillermo Foladori and Noela Invernizzi, ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies, “Nanotechnologies in Latin America,” December 2007, AC) The role of the private sector in nanotechnology development in these countries¶ and in most of Latin America is still ambiguous. History has shown that the Latin¶ American private sector has not been closely engaged with the R&D of new technologies.¶ The general trend is that companies wait for either the government or¶ public research centers to innovate so they can later make free use of the discoveries.¶ Most scientists see this as the most significant disadvantage, particularly,¶ because in this context, there are very limited possibilities to organize innovation¶ around the development of new merchandise. However, the division between the¶ private and the public sector in Latin America can open a window of opportunity¶ to create large public companies with an interest in applying nanotechnology for¶ the well-being of society. This, of course, would have to include most of the nonprofitable¶ areas of nanotechnology development such as: potable water, public¶ health, massive education, popular housing and many others.¶ It is worth mentioning that the main, if not the only, incentive behind nanotechnology¶ development in Latin America is to encourage an increase in competitiveness.¶ This subject is a matter of concern because the region has clear examples¶ of the consequences of the constant search for an increase in international¶ competitiveness while ignoring social indicators. The case of Mexico is, in this regard,¶ very illustrative. There is neither a mechanical nor a linear correlation between ¶ good macroeconomic performance and the improvement of the living conditions¶ of the population. The income concentration and inequality are features of¶ the Latin-American social structure that will not be solved, at least mechanically,¶ by just having a better position in the world market. Uniq: Neglected Diseases High The Impact is Neglected Diseases – they are an under-reported problem in the developing world Hotez et al 2k8 (Peter J. Hotez, Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine, The George Washington University and Sabin Vaccine Institute, Washington, D.C., United States of America 21,* Maria Elena Bottazzi,1 Carlos Franco-Paredes,2,3 Steven K. Ault,4, Hospital Infantil de México, Federico Gómez, México, D.F., México 3Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America“The Neglected Tropical Diseases of Latin America and the Caribbean: A Review of Disease Burden and Distribution and a Roadmap for Control and Elimination,” pg online @ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553488/ //um-ef) The neglected tropical diseases ( NTDs) represent some of the most common infections of the poorest people living in the Latin American and Caribbean region (LAC). Because they primarily afflict the disenfranchised poor as well as selected indigenous populations and people of African descent, the NTDs in LAC are largely forgotten diseases even though their collective disease burden may exceed better known conditions such as of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria. Based on their prevalence and healthy life years lost from disability, hookworm infection, other soiltransmitted helminth infections, and Chagas disease are the most important NTDs in LAC, followed by dengue, schistosomiasis, leishmaniasis, trachoma, leprosy, and lymphatic filariasis. On the other hand, for some important NTDs, such as leptospirosis and cysticercosis, complete disease burden estimates are not available. The NTDs in LAC geographically concentrate in 11 different subregions, each with a distinctive human and environmental ecology. In the coming years, schistosomiasis could be eliminated in the Caribbean and transmission of lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis could be eliminated in Latin America. However, the highest disease burden NTDs, such as Chagas disease, soil-transmitted helminth infections, and hookworm and schistosomiasis co-infections, may first require scale-up of existing resources or the development of new control tools in order to achieve control or elimination. Ultimately, the roadmap for the control and elimination of the more widespread NTDs will require an inter-sectoral approach that bridges public health, social services, and environmental interventions. The neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), a group of chronic, debilitating, and poverty-promoting parasitic, bacterial, and some viral and fungal infections, are among the most common causes of illness of the poorest people living in developing countries [1]. Their control and elimination is now recognized as a priority for achieving United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and targets for sustainable poverty reduction [1]–[3]. Approximately 40% of the estimated 556 million people living in the Latin American and the Caribbean region (LAC) live below the poverty line, including 47 million people who live on less than US$1 per day, and another 74 million people who live on less than US$2 per day [4],[5]. Relative to sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where the character of poverty in LAC is unique . In terms of income distribution, LAC exhibits the highest inequality anywhere [6], with the richest one-tenth of the population earning 48% of total income and the poorest tenth earning only 1.6% [7]. Of LAC's estimated 213 million impoverished people, approximately NTDs also occur, one-third live in rural poverty as subsistence farmers, ranchers, and fishermen [8], typically in communities of indigenous and African descent where they face a high level of social exclusion and social inequity [9], including lack of access to safe water and health care services [10],[11]. Two-thirds of the region's poor live in favelas, asentamientos pobres, barrios pobres, turgurias, and áreas periféricas, i.e., urban and peri-urban communities where poverty combines with the conditions of unsafe water, poor sanitation, and the proliferation of rodent animal reservoirs and vectors [8],[12]. Poverty is not the only major determinant for risk of acquiring NTDs in LAC. Instead, it combines with other inequities related to ethnicity (e.g., indigenous groups and people of African descent), age and gender (i.e., children and women), and a patchwork of unique ecological niches to establish sometimes highly focal epidemiological NTD “hot spots .” This has important implications for the control of NTDs in LAC, which may differ from the integrated NTD control currently being advocated for and tested in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere [1]. Here, we focus on some of the unique aspects of NTD disease burden and endemicity in the LAC region, as well as the prospects for NTD control and elimination in the region. The review of the literature was conducted using the online database PubMed from 2000 to 2007 with United States National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings, the specific diseases listed as neglected tropical diseases on the PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Web site (http://www.plosntds.org), and the geographic regions and countries of LAC. Reference lists of identified articles and reviews were also hand searched as were databases from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Web site (http://www.paho.org). Uniq: Risk High NTD STH, the most common neglected disease, leads to malnutrition and cognitive problems - current treatments fail IADB 12 (Social Protection and Health Division of the Inter-American Development Bank, The main source of multilateral financing and expertise for sustainable economic, social and institutional development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Through its Division of Social Protection and Health, the IDB is helping countries in the region to expand access to integrated primary health care services, to strengthen health systems organization and performance and to set priorities in meeting current and emerging needs, and to properly finance rising health costs in order to achieve healthier and more equitable societies, “Neglected Tropical Diseases Profile: Mexico,” http://www.neglecteddiseases.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Mexicoprofile-NTD-Website.pdf) IADB = Inter-American Development Bank, STH = Soil transmitted helminthiasis Soil-transmitted Helminthiasis (STH) ¶ STH is the most prevalent of the NTDs. The infectious agents are certain species of helminths that inhabit the gastrointestinal tract where they survive and reproduce for up to four years. Infection occurs when fertile eggs are ingested from contaminated water or soil. Conditions of poor sanitation where there is a lack of safe water and inadequate disposal of human excreta therefore sustain transmission. STH rarely causes death. Instead its public health consequences are manifest in the chronic, insidious effects that the condition causes such as malnutrition, anemia, impeded growth, increased susceptibility to other infections and cognitive problems.2 The groups at highest risk of the morbidities caused by STH include school-age children (SACs), pre-school age children (pre-SACs), and women of reproductive age.3 STH infection can be cured quickly, cheaply and safely with a single dose of an antihelminthic ¶ drug such as Albendazole or Mebendazole. Considerable evidence exists demonstrating that regular treatment of STH infection produces immediate benefits in health, and in the long term contributes significantly to the development of effected individuals, especially children.4 Treatment with these drugs can be provided to entire at-risk populations regardless of infection status – an intervention known as mass drug administration of preventive chemotherapy or MDA of PCT – because they are safe, cheap, easy to administer and cost effective. Schools are the main delivery channel for MDA and schoolteachers can be easily trained to administer the drugs to their students. Community-based distribution is also used to reach the poorest groups of the child population that may not be enrolled in school. MDA is a short term measure, however, and treated individuals may quickly get re-infected without longer term solutions to tackle the underlying causes of the disease. Improved access to safe water and sanitation remains the main long-term solution to interrupt the cycle of transmission and community mobilization for education and behavior change can further consolidate this impact. STH is prevalent in Mexico and the risk of getting it is also high IADB 12 (Social Protection and Health Division of the Inter-American Development Bank, The main source of multilateral financing and expertise for sustainable economic, social and institutional development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Through its Division of Social Protection and Health, the IDB is helping countries in the region to expand access to integrated primary health care services, to strengthen health systems organization and performance and to set priorities in meeting current and emerging needs, and to properly finance rising health costs in order to achieve healthier and more equitable societies, “Neglected Tropical Diseases Profile: Mexico,” http://www.neglecteddiseases.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Mexicoprofile-NTD-Website.pdf) IADB = Inter-American Development Bank, STH = Soil transmitted helminthiasis Mexico, along with Brazil and Guatemala, stands among the countries with the largest estimated number of STH cases in the Latin American and Caribbean Region: 18.3 million people with estimated infection of Trichuriasis and 9.3 million estimated to be infected by Ascariasis.5 In Mexico, PCT has been included as part of the national health weeks (NHWs) since 1993. Distribution of antihelminthic drugs is carried out by the Ministry of Health, with the operational support of other government organizations and international NGOs (such as Operation International Blessing) during the NHWs. A single dose of Albendazole (400 mg) is administered every eight months, based on the national distribution protocol for STH among SACs and pre-SACs between the ages of 2-14 years. The integration of Albendazole within the NHWs has been shown to be successful, based on an epidemiological analysis carried out on a sample of over 90,000 children to assess the health impact of regular, large-scale deworming. In 1993, when Albendazole distribution was first introduced, the national Ascaris prevalence was 20% and Trichuris was 15%. In 1998, the respective prevalences were Ascaris 8% and Trichuris 11%, a decrease that is attributed to the 12 NHWs that had taken place in the interim and in which deworming had been systematically provided to child population.6 Reported coverage of PCT among SACs indicates that 1,463,905 SACs were treated out of an estimated eligible population of 21,066,555 giving a coverage of 6.95% (compared with the 75% target set by the WHO).7 In Mexico, several studies have confirmed that STH is a disease of poverty in Mexico, mainly affecting low-income population groups and indigenous communities. In Chiapas, for example, the risk of intestinal parasitic infection (E. histolytica/dispar and G. lamblia) is associated with age and speaking an indigenous language. Lack of safe water, a refrigerator and electricity were also shown to be linked with Ascariasis presence8. In the same region of Chiapas, children (1-4 years) of households from communal farms were found to have a prevalence of multiple intestinal parasites almost three times higher than for children from private farms9. Although STH infections have typically been found among low-income settings in Mexico (Guerrero, Hidalgo, Puebla, Chiapas, Oaxaca States), a review of the intestinal parasites prevalence from 1995 to 2000 shows high rates of Ascariasis (>400/100,000 population) in - and middle-income States (such as Aguascalientes, Chihuahua, Yucatán, Veracruz, Zacatecas). 10 Solvency: Diseases Status quo virus prevention fails—nanotechnology completely eradicates disease Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) Nanotechnology researchers like Freitas and Eric Drexler, founder of the field, envision other medical applications of their call for nanomachines that could serve as dispensers of important biochemicals that are lacking in some individuals, for example. Nano-scale devices implanted in a human body might dispense insulin to diabetics or neurotransmitters (the chemicals that serve as the basis of brain function) to victims of Alzheimer�s disease.[19] Nanorobots in the body could serve a wide array of other functions. They could enter arteries and remove fat deposits clogging the cardiovascular system. They could function as artificial red blood cells, delivering additional oxygen to body tissues and increasing gas exchange in the lungs. A human body with these devices implanted could hold its breath underwater for hours at a time or run 15 minutes without taking a breath. [20]¶ Nanorobots could also serve as artificial immune devices, attacking the viruses and bacteria that cause so many human health problems. Their onboard computers could be programmed to seek out and destroy the plaque causing tooth decay, the virus causing AIDS, or the tumors associated with cancer. They could do so with far deadlier accuracy than work. They any drug or other treatment option available today , because they would do something today�s methods can�t. Drug molecules and radiation particles presently used to treat disease are �dumb� � they bounce around the body randomly until they hit a disease organism, frequently failing to kill that organism or killing healthy, benign cells instead. Anti-disease nanomachines , in contrast, would be �smart� devices, able to recognize specific microbes or cells and then target them for destruction with close to one hundred percent precision . That precision would allow them to avoid damage to healthy body tissues. It�s the difference between a howitzer shell that kills indiscriminately and a high powered rifle with a telescopic sight that kills only a specific target. [21]¶ The �holy grail� of nanomedicine is to construct general purpose cell repair nanomachines. Thousands of them would be stationed at each of the body�s 100 trillion or so cells. Their onboard computers would hold databases containing information on exactly what each of a healthy human body�s cells should look like. Whenever a nanomachine detected a molecule that didn�t fit the profile of a healthy human cell, the nanomachine would seize the flawed molecule and either repair it or destroy it. In this way, nanotechnologists hope their work will one day allow human beings to remain healthy indefinitely. Once an individual accepts cell repair nanomachines into his or her body, the nanotechnology community believes, any kind of disease or dysfunction in that person would become physically absolute, impossible � including aging. Nanotech eliminates disease—removes age restrictions on humans Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) Biological sources of human suffering and human limitations, according to this perspective, can and should be eradicated. For example, nanotechnology advocates believe nanomedicine must be used in the long run to eliminate human vulnerability to disease . Fully developed nanorobots, in their view, will be able to correct any damage to DNA, eliminate any tumors or infections, and repair most structural damage to the body. Such technology can , in principle, make disease via inheritance or infection a thing of the past if society so chooses. Nanotechnologists support such a choice.[40]¶ The same technology, they say, can be used to prevent aging. Since aging is simply a breakdown in the biochemical processes of cells over time, and nanorobots can eventually be used to prevent any such breakdown, human cells and the bodies they form can be preserved in a healthy condition indefinitely. Inherent limits on the human lifespan need no longer exist in the nanotechnology era, and so they should be removed . Drexler and his colleagues thus favor the possibility of centuries-long life spans for any individual as a deliberate objective of human societies.[41] Nanotech key to disease diagnostics Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) computers, when and if it occurs, could pave the way for other nano-scale devices � with biomedical science among the earliest likely applications. The ability to construct machines operating at a molecular level could, according to researches in the infant field of nanomedicine, revolutionize the field of medical imaging and diagnostics. Instead of using x-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, biopsies, or exploratory surgery to diagnose a patient�s condition, doctors would inject the patient with a fluid containing trillions of molecule-sized nanomachines. Each one would be equipped with light or sound-based imaging systems to scan the patient�s physiological and biochemical processes down to the level of individual lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids within cells. The nanomachines would then transmit this information to a computer outside the patient�s body for viewing and analysis by health care personnel. Nanomedicine advocates such as Dr. Robert Freitas, M.D., believe such information would be far more detailed and precise than anything provided by today�s diagnostic equipment. It would, say Freitas and his colleagues, provide something we cant obtain today � complete characterization of all cellular and biochemical processes occurring within the human body. Much of the guesswork of medical diagnosis would, in theory, be eliminated. The building of molecular Solvency: Disease (Diagnostics) Nanotechnology is key to disease diagnostics—the impact is global infections Hauck et al 10 (T. Hauck*, S. Giri**, Y. Gao***, W. Chan****, * Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, ** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, *** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, **** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, “Nanotechnology diagnostics for infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries”, 03/2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S0169409X090 03561//VS) Infectious diseases are prevalent in the developing world and are one of the developing world's major¶ sources of morbidity and mortality. While infectious diseases can initiate in a localized region, they can¶ spread rapidly at any moment due to the ease of traveling from one part of the world to the next. This could¶ lead to a global pandemic. One key to preventing this spread is the development of diagnostics that can¶ quickly identify the infectious agent so that one can properly treat or in some severe cases, quarantine a¶ patient. There have been major advances in diagnostic technologies but infectious disease diagnostics are¶ still based on 50year technologies that are limited by speed of analysis, need for skilled workers, poor¶ detection threshold and inability to detect multiple strains of infectious agents. Here, we describe advances¶ in nanotechnology and microtechnology diagnostics for infectious diseases. In these diagnostic schemes, the¶ nanomaterials are used as labels or barcodes while microfluidic systems are used to automate the sample¶ preparation and the assays. We describe the current state of the field and the challenges. Solvency: Only Nano Solves Status quo disease diagnosis fails—nanotech solves—reject their generic defense— nanotech overcomes current barriers to disease prevention Hauck et al 10 (T. Hauck*, S. Giri**, Y. Gao***, W. Chan****, * Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, ** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, *** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, **** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, “Nanotechnology diagnostics for infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries”, 03/2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S0169409X090 03561//VS) Although these diagnostic technologies are commonly used in the¶ developed world, they are often poorly suited for the developing¶ world, where infectious diseases are a major source of morbidity and¶ mortality and where the availability of clinical and laboratory facilities¶ may be limited. Consequently, the developing world presents novel¶ engineering challenges for diagnostics. The ideal diagnostic device for¶ the developing world would need to be a cost-effective, portable,¶ pointof-source or point-of-care detection system that would be¶ highly sensitive, accurate and could differentiate multiple pathogens. ¶ The World Health Organization has highlighted the major design¶ criteria for engineering infectious disease diagnostics for the developing world (see Table 1). In this review article, we focus on the¶ recent developments in nanotechnology-based molecular diagnostics.¶ These emerging technologies could overcome a number of the¶ engineering challenges associated with infectious disease diagnostics¶ in the developing world. Solvency: NTDs (Nano) Effective diagnosis is critical to eradicate neglected diseases Hauck et al 10 (T. Hauck*, S. Giri**, Y. Gao***, W. Chan****, * Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, ** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, *** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, **** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, “Nanotechnology diagnostics for infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries”, 03/2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S0169409X090 03561//VS) While tuberculosis, HIV and malaria represent critical pathogenic ¶ threats in the developing world today [5] other infectious diseases are¶ also causing considerable morbidity and mortality. These so-called¶ neglected diseases include African trypanosomiasis, Chagas disease,¶ leishmaniasis, dengue fever, schistosomiasis, diphtheria, influenza,¶ measles, cholera and leprosy [32,33]. Rapid POCT for these diseases¶ would improve access to treatment in resource-poor settings and¶ allow clinicians to effectively treat and isolate patients without the¶ need for follow-up visits or expensive laboratory facilities. The ability¶ to correctly identify and differentiate diseases with similar symptoms¶ would reduce pathogen spread and alleviate morbidity and mortality. Solvency: Disease Prevention Nanotech is key to disease prevention Hauck et al 10 (T. Hauck*, S. Giri**, Y. Gao***, W. Chan****, * Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, ** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, *** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, **** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, “Nanotechnology diagnostics for infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries”, 03/2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S0169409X090 03561//VS) Nanotechnology research and development involves the creation¶ and design of structures with at least one dimension below 100 nm. In¶ this size range, researchers can manipulate the optical, magnetic, and¶ electrical properties of nanostructures by altering their size, shape, or¶ atomic composition [34–36]. Currently, a vast library of nanostructures¶ has been synthesized and documented, with a wide variety of properties¶ and applications [37,38]. Fig. 3illustrates a variety of nanoparticles with¶ potential biomedical applications.¶ In addition, nanostructure surfaces can be modified with polymers or¶ other functional groups to improve nanostructure monodispersity or¶ reduce nonspecific binding of environmental or biological contaminants¶ (e.g. serum proteins). Surfaces can also be modified with molecules such¶ as antibodies, aptamers, or peptides [39] which allow nanoparticles to¶ target a particular gene, protein, cell or organin vivo. Thus far, researchers¶ have primarily exploited nanostructures in cancer applications where¶ they can act as probes for imaging, as delivery vehicles for cancer drugs¶ [40] and as therapeutics for the removal of tumor cells [41,42]. An¶ important area of focus for current and future nanotechnology research is¶ the development of nanotechnology-based molecular diagnostic platforms. Although only a handful of nanotechnology studies are focused on¶ infectious disease applications, many existing nanotechnology platforms¶ could be adapted for infectious disease diagnostics. Nanotech solves disease—rapid detection and effective diagnostics Hauck et al 10 (T. Hauck*, S. Giri**, Y. Gao***, W. Chan****, * Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, ** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, *** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, **** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, “Nanotechnology diagnostics for infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries”, 03/2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S0169409X090 03561//VS) For the three critical diseases identified, specific aspects of nanotechnology research must be developed. For TB, rapid multiplexed¶ tests are needed to detect simultaneous HIV infections, and the¶ sensitivity of nanotechnology assays must be exploited for the identification of latent infections. For HIV, extremely rapid detection,¶ ideally based on viral RNA, would aid in stemming the spread of the¶ virus, and knowledge of viral load would assist treatment. Finally, for¶ malaria, differentiation of strain and multiplexed detection of other¶ diseases with similar presentation would permit targeted treatment ¶ and prevent the emergence of parasites resistant to anti-malarials.¶ Although the advances of nanotechnology have not been fully applied¶ to infectious disease detection in the developing world, nanotechnology can potentially address many of the challenges outlined by the¶ World Health Organization for the delivery of rapid and effective¶ point-of-care diagnostics. Effective diagnostics are critical to ever level of disease prevention—nanotech solves Hauck et al 10 (T. Hauck*, S. Giri**, Y. Gao***, W. Chan****, * Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, ** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, *** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, **** Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto; Terrence Donnelly Center for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, “Nanotechnology diagnostics for infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries”, 03/2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S0169409X090 03561//VS) Infectious diseases cause millions of deaths a year around the¶ world, especially in developing regions. Appropriate interventions¶ such as targeted treatments are critical, and will only be possible with ¶ context- relevant diagnostics , which can economically and effectively¶ identify infected persons. Innovative technologies are needed to make¶ novel advances and permit rapid, multiplexed disease detection, an¶ area in which nanotechnology could play a leading role. Through the¶ use of quantum dots, metallic nanostructures, other nanoparticles,¶ and their integration with lab-on-a-chip technologies, promising¶ diagnostic alternatives are already in development.¶ The current advances we have discussed include highly sensitive¶ nanoparticle tests, multiplexed homogeneous and heterogeneous¶ systems and lab-on-a-chip platforms. Nanotech solves disease Nano 12 (Nano Magazine, “Nanotechnology in the developing world”, 10/27/2012 http://www.nanomagazine.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168%3Aeditori al--nanotechnology-in-the-developing-world&Itemid=149//VS) Advances in medicine, aided by an ever-evolving ability to explore and investigate disease thanks to new, more powerful technologies, are leading to new understandings of already well-studied diseases. As nanotechnologies continue to develop, our ability to investigate, manipulate and treat diseases is also set to improve.¶ Using advanced microscopy, researchers at Imperial College London and Oxford University recently discovered previously unknown nanotunnels between human immune cells that HIV was able to travel down to move from cell to cell. The discovery, featured in this issue, opens new doors for drug treatment and combating the disease and is an excellent example of the improved understanding of diseases that we are set to gain from new technologies.¶ Professor James Gimzewski was one of the first scientists ever to image molecules with the Scanning Tuneling Microscope and has led research for many years in the manipulation of molecules on the nanoscale. Solvency: Tech/Coop Key New forms of technology key to prevent neglected diseases Salicrup et. al 4 (Luis A., Senior Advisor for International Technology Transfer Activities, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., Mark L. Rohrbaugh, Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., “Partnerships for Innovation and Global Health: NIH International Technology Transfer Activities,” 2004, http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch17/p12/) Technological innovation is increasingly recognized as an important tool for improving global health. The Office of Technology Transfer of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH OTT) has increased its licensing of technologies for the prevention and treatment of neglected diseases to partner institutions in developing regions of the world. Other efforts have focused on providing assistance to indigenous institutions in building their technology transfer capacity. In addition to helping to achieve the primary objectives of meeting global public health needs and strengthening local R&D capacities, NIH OTT expects such efforts to have a positive impact on national policies on intellectual property rights, and, ultimately, to increase multinational investments in developing countries, which will likely result in an even greater effort to develop accessible therapies for those in need. Increased disease tech sharing prevents disease worldwide and increases economic growth Salicrup et. al 4 (Luis A., Senior Advisor for International Technology Transfer Activities, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., Mark L. Rohrbaugh, Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., “Partnerships for Innovation and Global Health: NIH International Technology Transfer Activities,” 2004, http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch17/p12/) By necessity, the NIH mission of NIH extends beyond U.S. borders. The U.S. works to improve health worldwide not only for humanitarian reasons but also because diseases do not observe national boundaries. Moreover, improved public health allows nations to better maintain economic growth and political stability.¶ One specific NIH goal for technology transfer is to “strengthen the capacity of developing countries to identify technologies and pursue their development into products, through education and technical assistance.”4 By extending R&D activities outside U.S. borders, we transfer technological know-how to developing countries. This learn-by-doing approach enhances technological capabilities5 and facilitates the development of technologically capable partners, which, in turn, better leverages the value of technologies and extends scientific knowledge and practice. Overall, such technology transfer activities are likely to add value and provide social returns on existing inventions,6 either by addressing U.S. market needs or by improving the health of people worldwide and preventing the spread of disease across U.S. borders. Tech sharing with underdeveloped countries solves the negative impacts of globalization and contains the spread of new diseases Salicrup et. al 4 (Luis A., Senior Advisor for International Technology Transfer Activities, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., Mark L. Rohrbaugh, Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., “Partnerships for Innovation and Global Health: NIH International Technology Transfer Activities,” 2004, http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch17/p12/) Globalization also exacerbates existing public health challenges that in turn impact the national interests of industrialized nations. These challenges, though not limited to the developing world, can be addressed in part by the transfer of technologies to developing countries. Indeed, the international community now widely recognizes that some diseases that once were contained within regional borders now threaten the United States in two ways:¶ Emerging and reemerging infectious disease epidemics: With increased movement of goods, animals, and people, diseases spread rapidly across borders, posing direct threats to U.S. citizens. It suffices to mention epidemics of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, influenza, tuberculosis, cholera, and SARS, which threaten not only the regions where they originated but also the entire globe.8¶ Risks from civil unrest: The spread of disease often fuels a cycle of poverty, suffering, and civil disorder. (Gaining access to drugs and medical technologies are genuine public welfare concerns in many developing countries.9, 10 Providing access to these countries will reduce the burden of disease and help improve the quality of life, thus diminishing the threat of unrest in volatile areas of the globe.) Assistance from developed countries key to spread R&D to cure diseases Salicrup et. al 4 (Luis A., Senior Advisor for International Technology Transfer Activities, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., Mark L. Rohrbaugh, Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A., “Partnerships for Innovation and Global Health: NIH International Technology Transfer Activities,” 2004, http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch17/p12/) The World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Cooperation for Development Program is committed to tailoring the implementation of its IP strategies to the diverse infrastructures and needs of developing countries.21 Similarly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) concludes that “the transfer of technology to developing countries is a key element so that countries can develop their own R&D infrastructure and capabilities to meet their own needs.”22 Developing countries that have reached a sufficient level of technological capacity are now encouraged to enhance their capabilities more dynamically by nurturing domestic assets and creatively blending domestic and foreign knowledge.23 Possible 1AC Impact: State Fail A. Neglected diseases lead to state failure – trigger political instability in nuclearweapons states Hotez 10 (Peter J. Hotez, distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Tropical Medicine at George Washington University. He is also president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute, January 21, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/gandhis_hookworms?page=0,1, “Gandhi’s Hookworms”) The people at highest risk for acquiring these NTDs also live in areas of greatest concern to the global security interests of the United States. As much as one half of the world's poor who suffer from NTDs live in the nations that comprise the Organization of the Islamic Conference, including Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Almost as many live in pockets of poverty in middle-income countries that either hold and maintain nuclear weapons stockpiles or aspire to produce them, including India, Pakistan, China, Iran, and North Korea. In these countries, people are not only trapped in poverty because of their health conditions, they are also trapped in conflict. As NTDs spread throughout impoverished areas of Islamic countries and nuclear weapons states, they can promote global insecurity by increasing poverty and the possibility for radicalization. The security risks created by high endemic rates of NTDs argue strongly for seeking low-cost solutions for their control and elimination. B. Extinction Toon et. al, 7 [ Owen B. Toon,1* Alan Robock,2* Richard P. Turco,3 Charles Bardeen,1 Luke Oman,2,4 Georgiy L. Stenchikov2 1Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado,. 2Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,. 3Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles,. 4Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. “Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear Conflicts,” 2 MARCH 2007 VOL 315 SCIENCE, http://bilge.pyrate.mailbolt.com/20070313ConsequencesOfRegionalNuclearConflicts .pdf] The world may no longer face a serious threat of global nuclear warfare, but regional conflicts continue . Within this milieu, acquiring nuclear weapons has been considered a potent political, military, and social tool (1–3). National ownership of nuclear weapons offers perceived international status and insurance against aggression at a modest financial cost. Against this backdrop, we provide a quantitative assessment of the potential for casualties in a regional-scale nuclear conflict, or a terrorist attack, and the associated environmental impacts (4, 5). Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons. In addition, North Korea may have a small, but growing, arsenal . Iran appears to be seeking nuclear weapons capability, but it probably needs several years to obtain enough fissionable material. Of great concern, 32 other nations—including Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—have sufficient fissionable materials to produce weapons (1, 6). A de facto nuclear arms race has emerged in Asia between China, India, and Pakistan, which could expand to include North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (1). In the Middle East, a nuclear confrontation between Israel and Iran would be fearful. Saudi Arabia and Egypt could also seek nuclear weapons to balance Iran and Israel. Nuclear arms programs in South America, notably in Brazil and Argentina, were ended by several treaties in the 1990s (6). We can hope that these agreements will hold and will serve as a model for other regions, despite Brazil’s new, large uranium enrichment facilities. Nuclear arsenals containing 50 or more weapons of low yield [15 kilotons (kt), equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb] are relatively easy to build (1, 6). India and Pakistan, the smallest nuclear powers, probably have such arsenals, although no nuclear state has ever disclosed its inventory of warheads (7). Modern weapons are compact and lightweight and are readily transported (by car, truck, missile, plane, or boat) (8). The basic concepts of weapons design can be found on of the Internet. The only serious obstacle to constructing a bomb is the limited availability of purified fissionable fuels. There are many political, economic, and social factors that could trigger a regional scale nuclear conflict, plus many scenarios for the conduct of the ensuing war. We assumed (4) that the densest population centers in each country—usually in megacities—are attacked. We did not evaluate specific military targets and related casualties. We considered a nuclear exchange involving 100 weapons of 15-kt yield each, that is, ~0.3% of the total number of existing weapons (4). India and Pakistan, for instance, have previously tested nuclear weapons and are now thought to have between 109 and 172 weapons of unknown yield (9). Fatalities were estimated by means of a standard population database for a number of countries that might be targeted in a regional conflict (see figure, above). For instance, such an exchange between India and Pakistan (10) could produce about 21 million fatalities—about half as many as occurred globally during World War II. The direct effects of thermal radiation and nuclear blasts, as well as gamma-ray and neutron radiation within the first few minutes of the blast, would cause most casualties. Extensive damage to infrastructure, contamination by long-lived radionuclides, and psychological trauma would likely result in the indefinite abandonment of large areas leading to severe economic and social repercussions. Fires ignited by nuclear bursts would release copious amounts of light-absorbing smoke into the upper atmosphere. If 100 small nuclear weapons were detonated within cities, they could generate 1 to 5 million tons of carbonaceous smoke particles (4), darkening the sky and affecting the atmosphere more than major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo (1991) or Tambora (1815) (5). Carbonaceous smoke particles are transported by winds throughout the atmosphere but also induce circulations in response to solar heating. Simulations (5) predict that such radiativedynamical interactions would loft and stabilize the smoke aerosol, which would allow it to persist in the middle and upper atmosphere for a decade. Smoke emissions of 100 lowyield urban explosions in a regional nuclear conflict would generate substantial globalscale climate anomalies, although not as large as in previous “nuclear winter” scenarios for a full-scale war (11, 12). However, indirect effects on surface land temperatures, precipitation rates, and growing season lengths (see figure, page 1225) would be likely to degrade agricultural productivity to an extent that historically has led to famines in Africa, India, and Japan after the 1783–1784 Laki eruption (13) or in the northeastern United States and Europe after the Tambora eruption of 1815 (5). Climatic anomalies could persist for a decade or more because of smoke stabilization, far longer than in previous nuclear winter calculations or after volcanic eruptions. Studies of the consequences of full-scale nuclear war show that indirect effects of the war could cause more casualties than direct ones, perhaps eliminating the majority of the world’s population (11, 12). Indirect effects such as damage to transportation, energy, medical, political, and social infrastructure could be limited to the combatant nations in a regional war. However, climate anomalies would threaten the world outside the combat zone. The predicted smoke emissions and fatalities per kiloton of explosive yield are roughly 100 times those expected from estimates for full-scale nuclear attacks with high-yield weapons (4). Unfortunately, the Treaty on NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons has failed to prevent the expansion of nuclear states. A bipartisan group including two former U.S. secretaries of state, a former secretary of defense, and a former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee has recently pointed out that nuclear deterrence is no longer effective and may become dangerous (3). Terrorists, for instance, are outside the bounds of deterrence strategies. Mutually assured destruction may not function in a world with large numbers of nuclear states with widely varying political goals and philosophies. New nuclear states may not have well-developed safeguards and controls to prevent nuclear accidents or unauthorized launches. This bipartisan group detailed numerous steps to inhibit or prevent the spread of nuclear weapons (3). Its list, with which we concur, includes removing nuclear weapons from alert status to reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon; reducing the size of nuclear forces in all states; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty worldwide; securing all stocks of weapons, weaponsusable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world; controlling uranium enrichment along with guaranteeing that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained from controlled international reserves; safeguarding spent fuel from reactors producing electricity; halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and research facilities and rendering the materials safe; and resolving regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers. The analysis summarized here shows that the world has reached a crossroads. Having survived the threat of global nuclear war between the superpowers so far, the world is increasingly threatened by the prospects of regional nuclear war. The consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts are unexpectedly large, with the potential to become global catastrophes. The combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability, and urban demographics may constitute one of the greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of humans . Impacts: Malaria Malaria destroys the global economy and locks underdeveloped countries into a cycle of state failure and poverty Brundtland 2000 (Dr. Gro Harlem, M.D, Director General at the WHO, Master of Public Health at Harvard University, Statement at the Summit on Roll Back Malaria in Africa, April 25, http://www.who.int/directorgeneral/speeches/2000/english/20000425_nigeria.html) Professor Jeffrey Sachs has just presented to us his report on the economic effects of malaria. As I listened to him, I was struck by the enormity of the damage caused by this ancient disease. A loss of economic growth of more than one percentage point per year. A 20% reduction in GNP after 15 years. Short term benefits from malaria control of up to $12 billion each year. These are staggering numbers. I conclude that Malaria is taking a big bite out of Africa’s economic growth. For every year that malaria is left unchecked, it will cause African nations to fall further behind the rest of the world. But malaria is not just an African issue. Malaria and its economic impact threaten our stability as a global community and threaten the future of our increasingly global economy. I do not accept a future with ever widening differences in the growth of nations. Together we must fight for a future free from the burdens of malaria If we can control malaria, we will see an acceleration of Africa's development If malarious areas are free of the disease, family incomes will rise If there is less malaria in homes, school attendance will increase – sometimes dramatically. At yesterday's technical meeting, Africa's scientists told us of the tools needed to roll back this cause of suffering and poverty, to banish this obstacle to economic growth. Insecticide treated nets in the home reduce transmission and prevent infection. Indoor spraying with safe insecticides prevents infection. Treatment during pregnancy protects the mother's health and improves birth weight. Rapid diagnosis and early treatment of someone with malaria shorten the illness and reduce death rates. These interventions appear simple. Ensuring their success is not. To be effective they must reach all at risk. In many countries malaria has been a fact of life and death for so long that individuals, families, communities and institutions tolerate its burden. Outspoken commitment, vision and energy are essential to overcome this sense of fatalism and resignation surrounding malaria. Your excellencies: I am delighted that you have come here today to turn the tide. Over the last two years, your Governments have joined forces with the WHO, UNICEF, UNDP, the World Bank, the African Development Bank, with development agencies, research groups, non-governmental organisations and private corporations in starting to build a powerful movement. This is the movement to Roll Back Malaria. The spearhead for this movement is in Africa. In more than 20 countries, malaria is now being tackled through all branches of government and with increasing involvement of the private sector. However, much more remains to be done. Malaria needs a high profile throughout African society. Everyone needs to realise the full impact of this disease, to agree on the goals, and to know how they can be realised in different settings. We – the partners supporting the Roll Back Malaria Movement – must continue to support applied research to identify and apply the best anti-malaria therapies. This will help to counter the development of drug resistance. We need to find better ways to improve access to drugs, and to prevent counterfeiting. We need to work together to review taxes and tariffs on mosquito nets and other commodities. We need to coordinate the many contributions — financial and technical — of the Roll Back Malaria partners at country level. And, most importantly, we need to monitor achievements. We need to involve the parts of the private sector that can help get goods and services to people. It has the distribution networks, the communications skill and the marketing resources. We would like private entities to be true partners in the movement. Several are already involved in the Medicines for Malaria venture. In all this work, we count on you, the Heads of State and Governments, to lead us, so that we work together effectively in Rolling Back Malaria. Mr President, The turn of the century coincides with a remarkable shift in thinking about human development. I sense a growing realisation among decision-makers that to reduce . Illness – particularly malaria – keeps Africa's people and their nations poor. Bad health locks people into poverty. Healthy populations have better school attendance, higher incomes and more rapid economic development. I anticipate that today we will agree an approach on rolling back malaria that also applies whether we are tackling tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, maternal ill-health, tobacco-related ill-health or other priority problems. It means: Information campaigns, to increase knowledge and understanding and empower people to act to improve their health Access to essential drugs, vaccines, and other commodities; Effective health services – close to the home; and A healthy environment – with clean water and sanitation It certainly includes actions within communities, responsive to the needs of poor people, supported by all sectors of society. We partners are working together to mobilise large increases in resources for health, to reduce the prices of drugs and commodities, to minimise tariffs and taxes on these goods, to support the discovery and development of effective drugs and vaccines, and to back-up effective action at country level.. These are all concrete and targetoriented actions. They bring results. poverty we must improve health Impacts: Econ Neglected diseases trap people in poverty and destroy the economies of developing countries Hotez 10 (Peter J. Hotez, distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Tropical Medicine at George Washington University. He is also president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute, January 21, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/gandhis_hookworms?page=0,1, “Gandhi’s Hookworms”) Toward the end of his life, Mohandas Gandhi suffered from a hookworm infection. This disease, caused by blood-feeding worms in his intestine, is associated with severe anemia, lethargy, and fatigue. The fact that Gandhi's vigorous efforts to wage peace in India may have been slowed because of hookworms is only one of the more dramatic examples of the deep connection between medical health and the promotion of international peace and security.¶ Today almost all of the 1.4 billion people who live below the World Bank's poverty line are infected with hookworms or related parasites. Taken together, there are seven high-prevalence Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) that particularly afflict low- and middle-income countries: six parasitic worm infections, which each afflict up to 1 billion people, and a bacterial infection known as blinding trachoma, which infects 60 to 80 million people.¶ In addition to their disproportionate impact on the poor, NTDs differ from the type of infections common in the developed world because, in the absence of treatment, they can persist for years or decades. NTDs produce chronic and disabling effects on child development and farm worker productivity, and they increase the risks of pregnancy. In doing so, these infections actually trap people in poverty -- chronic hookworm infections in childhood reduce cognition, school performance, and future wage-earning potential by 40 percent or more.¶ India loses almost $1 billion annually in worker productivity because of elephantiasis, which is caused by filarial worms in the lymphatic system and genitals. Africa suffers similar economic losses from elephantiasis -- as well as river blindness caused by larval worms in the eyes and skin, and schistosomiasis from worm eggs in the intestines, liver, bladder, or female genitals. Inherency No Development Now 2AC AT: SQ Solves And, U.S.-Mexico Nano Coop dying in the status quo – Mexico will cooperate with other agents over Nano Foladori et al 2k12 (Guillermo FOLADORI Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Édgar ZÁYAGO Profesor de la Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas Richard APPELBAUM Profesor de la Universidad de California Rachel PARKER Investigadora del Science and Technology Policy Institute en Washington, “A"?(/*JMNON&O/("27(./&0*))%'*,%7(*2 in Nanotechnology,” pg online @ http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/136/13623082009.pdf //um-ef) If one compares the US-Mexican funding programs in NT with those between in time horizon: the European partnerships are far longer-term than those with the U nited S tates, and are funded at substantially higher levels as well. Unless these circumstances change , it seems reasonable to conclude that Mexican NT will likely see its traditional US partnerships decline , relative to those with European countries. Current Dialogue Fails Current international dialogue fails – distinction between processes that address risks of nanotech and processes that allow for development Barker et al. 11 [Todd F. Barker, a Partner at Meridian Institute with more than 15 years designing and managing collaborative problem solving processes. Mr. Barker has worked extensively on issues related to science and technology, including the implications of emerging technologies such as nanotechnology and biotechnology for developing countries, Leili Fatehi, is a graduate student at the University of Minnesota School of Law and Editor-in-Chief of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. She was a Research Assistant and the Editor of Nanotechnology and Development News at Meridian Institute from 2005 to 2008, Michael T. Lesnick, a founder and Senior Partner of the Meridian Institute, Timothy J Mealey, serves as a convener, facilitator, and mediator of multi-party policy dialogues, negotiations, and collaborative problem solving processes on a wide variety of national and international environmental and sustainable development issues— including issues related to nanotechnology research, development and utilization, Rex R. Raimond, is a Senior Mediator at Meridian Institute where he designs and manages collaborative problem solving processes aimed at helping people solve complex and controversial societal problems, “Nanotechnology and the poor: opportunities and risks for Developing countries”, Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality, and Development The rise in nanotechnology investments and proliferation of applications has contributed to growing about implications of the rapid evolution of nanotechnology, including potential near- and long-term social and economic disruptions, human health and environmental risks, and ethical, legal, and other impacts. Governments, companies, NGOs, universities, international institutions, standardization bodies, and other stakeholders have initiated a number of efforts to discuss, develop, and implement risk assessment, governance, standardization, and public involvement strategies to address these potential implications. Despite these efforts, there are few processes to collectively engage multiple stakeholders in addressing the opportunities and risks of nanotechnology for developing countries. Moreover, where processes do exist to identify linkages between nanotechnology and development, these activities remain disengaged from the predominant risk assessment, governance, standardization, and other key initiatives. These gaps are a significant concern, as current decisions in both developed and developing countries may result in policies, practices, and systems that have longterm impacts on whether nanotechnology will help or hinder the effort to address specific human development needs. international dialogue Haphazard Coop Now National project key to economic competitiveness—US interaction key Foladori et al 07 Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS The path that nanotechnologies have followed in the case of Mexico, the second big player in the region, is somewhat different (Foladori & Zayago, 2008).¶ The main difference is that there is no national plan or policy to direct the development of the nanosciences and nanotechnology . Paradoxically, the technology¶ has been considered as one of vital importance, even strategic, as identified in¶ 2002 in the Special Program on Science and Technology 2001-2006 within the¶ National Plan of Development (Foladori & Zayago, 2007). ¶ Despite the absence of an integral national policy of nanotechnology and combined with the consistent reduction in the budget destined to S&T, estimated at ¶ 0.4% of the GDP in 2005, several research groups were created. According to different estimates, there are currently between 300 and 500 scientists working in the¶ area of nanotechnology, most of which are linked via bilateral or multilateral agreements and by the creation of national and international research networks.¶ These networks incorporate the most important Mexican universities and research¶ centers, creating bonds with the European Union, with some other Latin American countries, but mainly with the US, whose compelling influence is growing ¶ every year. The collaboration between Mexico and the US regarding nanotechnology development has been done by essentially three mechanisms: at the scientific-academic level (between research centers and universities); in correspondence¶ with political and business interests (by establishing high technology parks within¶ the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); and¶ through scientific and military accords. ¶ As the Brazilian case, the main justification to support nanotechnology development in Mexico is an increase in competitiveness and, at the same time, there¶ is no concern about the social, economical, political and ethical implications, as¶ well as the potential risks, of using nano technologies. Mexico Regulations 2AC No Mexico Regs Now ***Gov’t action key to effective regulations – only way to boosts Mexican competitiveness Foladori and Invernizzi 12 (Guillermo Foladori and Noela Invernizzi, ReLANS coordinators, Doctoral Program in Development Studies, “Social and Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology Development in Latin America and the Caribbean,” 2012, AC) Why would transnational enterprises like to set up shop in México? Geography¶ can be an answer, but not necessarily the most important one. Perhaps it has something to do with the paucity of regulations and lax rules. In the U.S., the potential risks to health and the threats to the environment derived from nanoparticles are part of the political agenda. As a consequence, the costs for¶ nanotechnology R&D might increase. It is likely that some enterprises will seek¶ to avoid these costs by migrating to countries where these rules are nonexistent.¶ 7 The controversial Mansfield Amendment of 1973 expressly limited appropriations for defense research ¶ (through ARPA/DARPA) to projects with direct military application5¶ Is this condition a potential risk to countries such as México where there is no consideration about the possible environmental effects of the use of nanotechnology?¶ Further, can the lack of regulations unbalance the possible positive benefits of nanotechnology?¶ Building high-tech scientific parks is not only a matter of infrastructure. If the¶ projects are successful, the requirements for technical personnel and highly qualified human resources will increase. Even though there are several graduate programs in nanotechnology in México (IPICyT, BUAP, IMP, UANL, CIMAV,¶ UNAM, UANL, CINVESTAV, etc.), the public budget directed to R&D has been¶ decreasing in the last decade. Additionally, there is no proper training in math and ¶ science at the lower levels of the education system, which can affect enrollment¶ in highly technical graduate programs in the future. In the U.S., Canada and Europe there is serious concern about the scarcity of scientists in the area of nanotechnology. Is it possible that México, with a scarce number of technical and¶ scientific personnel, will be able to supply the demands of the scientific parks and ¶ the recently created research centers? Could the increasing number of partnerships¶ and agreements, such as ICNAM, which allows Mexican students to pursue graduate studies in the U.S., be a threat to increase the brain drain from México to the¶ U.S.?¶ It is clear that nanotechnology research in México is associated with the possibility of increasing competitiveness. It is also done to attract foreign capital. Both¶ the increase of competitiveness and the attraction of capital are regulated by profit-making. Under current conditions in México there is no regulation or public discussion about the use of nanotechnology. Is it a latent risk to allow the development of nanotechnology without appropriate oversight? Could this exacerbate the¶ prevailing internal inequity? 2AC Mexico Regs Add-ons B. Accumulation of toxins cascades throughout the food chain, resulting in human extinction Montague 91 (Peter, Editor – Rachel's Health and Environment Weekly, "Real Hope For The Great Lakes: Local Groups Form 'Zero Discharge Alliance'," 3-20, http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn225.htm) Bioaccumulative toxins are dangerous because amounts that seem harmless are multiplied as they pass through the food chain; often the result is environmental destruction. The adverse consequences of bioaccumulative toxins may become understood only after it is too late. For example, human breast milk is now contaminated with hundreds of persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (see RHWN #193), but the effects of these poisons upon breast-fed infants is not known except in rare cases. Such dousing of infant children with persistent, bioaccumulative toxins is a massive experiment; the full results may become known in the future, but one thing is known beyond any doubt today: it cannot help the human species to expose it from birth onward to a constant bath of industrial toxins. (People who are tempted to think that the human species might be improved by random meddling with our genetic structure should remind themselves that a human is something like a TV set [though of course much more complex] and the hope of improving a human by randomly introducing poisons into its diet at an early age is like splashing hot solder into a TV set's electronic circuits hoping to improve the picture.) It is important to note that many of the most toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative chemicals are formed by the use of the element chlorine. DDT, PCBs, dioxins, CFCs, and many pesticides are chlorine compounds. Most people know of chlorine because it disinfects their drinking water, kills germs in the local swimming pool, or bleaches their clothes in the washing machine. Unfortunately, when it is used by industry, chlorine produces a broad spectrum of toxins that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate. In a very real sense, chlorine lies at the heart of the toxics problem, world-wide. For two decades, government has tried to control toxic pollutants one at a time, by establishing the exact amount that could be safely released into the environment, issuing "permits" giving industry permission to discharge toxics into air and water, then trying to police the polluters to force compliance with the permitted limits. The entire effort was foolish from the start: there are over 40,000 chemicals in use today and 1000 to 2000 new ones enter commercial channels each year. Meanwhile during its 20-year effort, government has managed to establish "safe" limits for fewer than 100 chemicals. Meanwhile, government has gone ahead and issued permits that ignored most chemicals entirely (because there was no basis for saying how much was safe). Finally, government never showed any real interest (or ability) in enforcing these silly permits. A classic house of cards. This wrong-headed effort at pollution control (instead of pollution prevention) has led to massive damage to wildlife throughout the Great Lakes (see RHWN #146) and, worldwide, a dangerous accumulation of toxics in creatures that eat at the top of the food chain, like large birds, large fish, bears, and humans. It is now crystal clear that the old way has been a complete failure, which, if it is continued, can only lead to the humans . extinction of Mexico Models China Now Mexico modeling and cooperating with China now – plan is key to reverse this Reid and Niosi 07 - *Associate Professor at Bishop’s University, **Canda Research Chair in Technology Management at the University of Montreal at Quebec (Susan and Jorge, “Biotechnology and Nanotechnology: Science-based Enabling Technologies as Windows of Opportunity for LDCs?”, World Development, 2007, pg. Science Direct)//BD To date, Mexico has mostly focused its efforts in the areas of manufacturing of nanomaterials, somewhat similar to China’s strategy. For example, Clariant a large chemical company, in 2002 commissioned a new production facility at Coatzacoalcos to manufacture chemicals for nanobiomaterials. Interestingly, in Beijing August 16, 2004, Mexico and China signed a memorandum of understanding which officially established cooperation and exchange in science and technology. Another initiative that holds great promise for Mexico is the University of Texas initiative “Nano-@-the-Border.” This program offers the possibility of an international partnership with Mexico through CONACYT and universities in Mexico. This institutional arrangement holds great potential value for Mexico as there is a great deal of technical expertise in the materials field due to the Texas cluster being the first to get involved in nanomaterials scale production. While Argentina is a late contender, it has recently become involved in an EUArgentina co-op agreement on Science and Technology which, given the involvement of the EU with nanotechnology, will likely involve some investment there over the next few years. South Korea has been an early mover with patenting in the nanospace and plans to spend $2 billion US over the 10-year period of 2001–10. Taken in combination with the fact that South Korea was an early adopter of a comprehensive broadband policy, deregulation, and involving strong competition, this allowed entry into markets involving fast networking, high-quality video and data voice services. As such South Korea is well positioned for the window of opportunity presented by the software/analysis challenges of nanotechnology. This infrastructure will likely also be indispensable for connecting with the next wave of proteomics analysis instruments because many nanotech companies will require the ability to perform massive number crunching for data analysis and control Regulations Good/Bad Regulations Good 1AC/2AC Effective Regulations Key** Regulations lead to more growth and innovation in nanotech research and development Matsuura 6 (Jeffrey H. Matsuura, Assistant Professor and Director of the Program in Law & Technology at the University of Dayton Law School in Dayton, Ohio, “Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide,” July 2006, http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10160965, AC) We have discussed the key emerging forms of regulation affecting nanotechnology research and applications. In this chapter, we will address the potential impact of regulation on nanotechnology research and associated commercial development. Regulation will have a profound impact on nanotechnology research and commercialization. Regulatory oversight is essential to protect the public interest, but regulation can also slow or block nanotechnology development. To meet successfully the challenge of applying regulatory oversight in a manner that effectively balances protection of the public interest with promotion of useful technological innovation, we must first understand the potential impact of regulation on research and commercial development in the field of nanotechnology. Regulations can affect the direction and scope of research through the prohibitions, incentives, and disincentives they establish. Regulations also have a profound impact on the incentives and disincentives for development of commercial applications, and those incentives and disincentives affect the pace and scope of commercial development of nanotechnology. Through their impact on commercial development, regulations have a substantial impact on the structure and functions of the developing nanotechnology marketplace. As a result of the extremely broad potential reach of nanotechnology and the worldwide interest in this field, nanotechnology regulations will have significant effects on international relationships. Those regulations will play a major role in the allocation of costs associated with any risks that nanotechnology may carry. Regulatory action will also play a key part in the development of public perceptions regarding nanotechnology, and those public perceptions will have a significant impact on political activities affecting the climate for nanotechnology. Regulatory strategies, particularly some of the more activist approaches such as the precautionary principle, dramatically affect the assessment of certainty associated with regulatory scope. Those strategies will have a major impact on development of nanotechnology and on all emerging technologies of the future. An important aspect of regulation that is sometimes overlooked is the obligation to balance protection against potential public harm, with the goal of facilitating beneficial use. We sometimes focus regulatory attention on prevention of harm. Although that is one of the key objectives, it is not the sole goal of regulation. Regulation is also intended to facilitate public access to useful products and services. Part of the mandate under which regulators operate is the duty to try to facilitate prompt, safe, and economical public access to helpful goods and services. Regulators must do more than protect the public from harm. They must also try to enhance the quality of life by fostering public availability of useful goods and services. Protection from harm and access to benefits are both fundamental goals of regulation. Thus, for example, pharmaceutical regulators clearly have an obligation to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs made available to the public. Those regulators must also, however, work to make drugs that are effective available to the public as quickly and as broadly as possible. In the context of nanotechnology, regulation should both protect the public from potential negative consequences of nanotechnology use and promote publicly beneficial use of that technology. No Regs Now International regulations low now – lack of research, scattered laws Soliman 12 - agricultural economist, attorney, and researcher focused on legal and economic issues in the Agriculture, Resource and Food sectors (Adam, “The Need for Stronger Nanotechnology Regulation”, Food Safety News, 10/16/2012, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/why-we-should-have-more-regulations-onnanotechnology/#.UfV_zI21F6I)//BD ¶ Internationally, there is a shortage of regulations on nanotechnology due to a lack of accumulated research on the science. As a result, untested nanoparticles seem to slip through the cracks of existing legislation into widely used consumer products. Since the long-term impact of nanomaterials on the natural environment and human health is unknown, it is difficult to comprehensively regulate this technology in a single piece of legislation that would capture its risks. Rather, nanotechnology should be regulated by a series of laws which govern the exposure of nanotechnology on specific areas: food, environment, medicine and agriculture. ¶ Recommendations for Nanotechnology¶ Given the increasing use of nanomaterials, comprehensive legislation must soon be developed (9). Our current juncture offers good opportunities for relevant authorities to make greater efforts in guiding the development of nanoproduction. Existing laws are scattered across new/toxic substances, public health and food regulations, in which areas action is only demanded once a clear risk is proven. But such proof is not yet available for this technology.¶ Manufacturers should legally be required to research nanoproduction and its risks. In addition, a mandatory safety reporting scheme should be introduced to monitor the risks of nanomaterials present in imported and sold products. This reporting scheme should be required for distribution of nanoparticles in any amount to ensure that manufacturers are accountable for all of their products. These safety regulations would hopefully provide protection for consumers until sufficient research can prove that the benefits outweigh the risks of utilizing engineered nanoparticles. Governing bodies can also be responsible for collecting relevant data and establishing a centralized research authority that monitors nanoparticles’ long term effects. This would create awareness and offer the consumer a choice between products that include nanoparticles and the ones that don’t.¶ Conclusion¶ Nanotechnology is a new science that lacks clear definition and regulations for managing these particles. Untested nanomaterials are already widely engineered into food, medical and agricultural products. The lack of research and management in place for the vast application of nanoparticles make legislation challenging. Meanwhile, various interest groups lobby strongly for limited legislation on nanotechnology in efforts to allow this science to come to full fruition. The long-term effects of nanoparticle use may be positive, but they may also have a negative impact on health. Thus, jurisdictions should continue to broaden legislation monitoring the development of nanotechnology. Solves Nano Bad Regulatory processes and built in defense measures eliminate the negative effects of nanotech Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) Since its inception, the Foresight Institute has led an effort to confront the potentially apocalyptic dimensions of nanotechnology and develop viable responses. Drexler and others have developed strategies that they believe will permit the exploitation of nanotechnology�s potential while minimizing its dangers. To prevent an accidental disaster, for example, self-replicating nanomachines could be manufactured to function only in the presence of a specially engineered fuel or a signal broadcast by a human controller. Replicating nanodevices could also be built to have a limited lifespan, preventing the possibility that they would multiply endlessly if accidentally released into the environment.[47] While these measures prevent accidents, fleets of defensive nanomachines could patrol the Earth�s biosphere guarding against deliberate attack from hostile, self-replicating nanoweapons. This �active shield,� as Drexler calls it, would hunt down malignant nanomachines and destroy them in much the same way that the body�s immune system quells an infection. [48] AIs would be kept in carefully controlled environments or designed with behavioral controls to prevent them from taking aggressive action. [49]¶ Nanotechnologists have devoted a great deal of attention to physical dangers like nanotech accidents, super-weapons, and rogue AIs. Key to Commercial. Gov’t regulations spur innovation, create opportunities for research, and lead to effective development Matsuura 6 (Jeffrey H. Matsuura, Assistant Professor and Director of the Program in Law & Technology at the University of Dayton Law School in Dayton, Ohio, “Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide,” July 2006, http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10160 965, AC) Regulation can both directly and indirectly influence the direction and scope of research in the field of nanotechnology. Regulation asserts direct influence over the direction and scope of research when, for example, it prohibits or severely restricts research in certain fields. An example of this type of direct regulatory impact on research is presented by U.S. government limitations on stem cell research funding. Indirect impact on research can exist when regulatory oversight as to certain forms of research or certain research practices becomes substantial enough to make work in those fields notably cumbersome, thus providing disincentive for research on those topics. Another example of an indirect regulatory impact on nanotechnology research occurs when regulators require additional information regarding the effects of nanotechnology on the environment, humans, and society. That need for accurate, timely information on nanotechnology effects creates a demand for research in certain fields. That demand provides an example of indirect support for research. Another example of indirect influence on research involves research that aims to work around government restrictions. For instance, when the U.S. government placed restrictions on funding for stem cell research, many researchers took an interest in developing lines of research that could be scientifically productive, while also avoiding some of the ethical concerns that led the U.S. government to impose the research limitations. One method through which regulation affects research involves incentives or barriers to research associated with specific topics. If government prohibits or denies government research funding for particular fields of work, clearly those fields will not be explored as fully or as quickly as they could be with government support. In contrast, if government establishes research priorities, those topics will thrive, as they attract significant research attention. Government funding and encouragement play a critical role in the direction of nanotechnology research. Even without government funding or support for certain fields of research, private funding sources may step in to facilitate research; however, research advances will likely be delayed by government restrictions on research. Government policies, laws, and regulations create incentives and barriers for research at many different levels. Note that government incentives and disincentives can be expressed in forms other than funding and direct prohibitions. For example, if national, local, state, or regional governments provide tax law incentives for research, those tax benefits provide encouragement for research. If a local government imposes real estate zoning ordinances that prohibit or restrict certain forms of research, those real estate laws create a barrier to research. In the United States, the public in the state of California voted to enact a legal plan that allocated substantial public resources to support and facilitate stem cell research in the state, even though that initiative ran generally counter to national policy in the United States. Expect a similar range of legal and public policy actions by national, regional, and local governments aimed at facilitating, and limiting, work involving nanotechnology. Regulation can also create opportunities for nanotechnology research. To the extent that some regulatory requirements in fields such as environmental protection require specific technical capabilities that may be satisfied through use of nanotechnology, regulatory requirements could provide incentives for research into nanotechnology applications that facilitate compliance. The traditional regulatory framework in the fields of environmental protection, health and safety, and other categories now focuses on those instances, if any, in which the movement to nanoscale materials and processes requires new regulatory requirements. The assessment of the extent to which such nano-specific rules are necessary requires a broad foundation of research. Regulators around the world are now conducting and supporting research to determine what additional forms of regulation may be needed in order to protect the public interest from any special threats posed by nanoscale activities. This research presents a significant opportunity for nanotechnology researchers. For example, substantial attention is now directed toward potential toxic threats posed by nanotechnology applications. A wide range of parties, including governments, private industry, and public interest groups now urge substantially more research in the field of nanotoxicology. They contend that such research is necessary to provide an effective foundation for future regulation. Without the research, effective regulation will not be possible. This situation presents a significant opportunity for research, encouraging research into both potential applications for nanotechnology and potential consequences of nanotechnology use. Nanotechnology and its applications are in their early stages of development; accordingly, the impact of the technology remains unclear. Continuing research into nanotechnology impact will likely remain an important field of research for many years. To date, the global trend has been to encourage diverse nanotechnology research and commercialization. The United States and other nations implemented legislative and regulatory provisions actively encouraging and promoting basic nanotechnology research and exploration of potential commercial development. The current international environment is highly supportive of nanotechnology research, and it generally provides effective incentives for research in those fields. As nanotechnology research advances, we are likely to see additional emphasis by governments on supporting and encouraging research into specific fields, such as the environmental, health, and safety implications of widespread nanotechnology use in diverse applications. Regulators, nanotechnology proponents, and the public should all remain mindful that regulation and policies at all levels of government have a significant impact on research. They should also recognize that the impact on nanotechnology and other forms of research is caused by both direct and indirect regulatory action. Rules, laws, and policies, in fields as diverse and as seemingly distantly removed from research, such as taxation and real estate, significantly affect research. All those involved in nanotechnology development and regulation should pay particular attention to this wide range of influences on nanotechnology research. Safety Regulations key to safe development of nanotech Chen 2 (Andrew, Board Member at InterPlay, Founder of Kavalry Inc., IT and web development professional, March 2002, “The Ethics of Nanotechnology,” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/chen/nanotechnology.html) It would be difficult to deny the potential benefits of nanotechnology and stop development of research related to it since it has already begun to penetrate many different fields of research. However, nanotechnology can be developed using guidelines to insure that the technology does not become too potentially harmful. As with any new technology, it is impossible to stop every well funded organization who may seek to develop the technology for harmful purposes. However, if the researchers in this field put together an ethical set of guidelines (e.g.Molecular Nanotechnology Guidelines) and follow them, then we should be able to develop nanotechnology safely while still reaping its promised benefits. Environmental Protection New regulations necessary for nanotech development – existing framework is too broad and inefficient Theodore and Kunz 5 (Louis Theodore, EngScD, a professor of chemical engineering for fifty years, Robert G. Kunz, environmental engineering manager at a major industrial gas and chemical company before retiring after twenty-six years. He also worked in the petroleum industry, on plant design/construction, and for a manufacturer of air pollution control catalyst. He is currently an independent environmental consultant. Dr. Kunz earned a BChE degree in chemical engineering from Manhattan College, a PhD in chemical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, an MS in environmental engineering from Newark College of Engineering, and an MBA from Temple University, April 22, 2005, “Nanotechnology: Environmental Implications and Solutions,” p. 37) Completely new legislation and regulatory rulemaking will almost certainly be¶ necessary for environmental control of nanotechnology. However. in the meantime.¶ one may speculate on how the existing regulatory framework might be applied to¶ the nanotechnology area as this emerging field develops over the next several¶ years. One experienced Washington, D.C., attorney has done just that, as summarized below. The reader is encouraged to consult the cited references as¶ well as the text of the laws that are mentioned and the applicable regulations¶ derived from them.¶ As indicated above, commercial applications of nanotechnology are likely to be¶ regulated under TSCA, which authorizes EPA to review and establish limits on the¶ manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and/or disposal of new materials that¶ EPA determines to pose "an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the¶ environment." The term chemicals is defined broadly by TSCA. Unless qualifying¶ for an exemption under the law [R&D (a statutory exemption requiring no further¶ approval by EPA), lowvolume production, low environmental releases along¶ with low volume, or plans for limited test marketing], a prospective manufacturer¶ is subject to the full-blown PMN procedure. This requires submittal of said¶ notice, along with toxicity and other data to EPA at least 90 days before commencing production of the chemical substance. No Regs Collapse Enviro And, environmentally destructive nanotech collapses ecosystems Rakhlin 2k9 (J.D. candidate at Duke University School of Law, 2009; M.B.A. candidate at The Fuqua School of Business, 2009; B.S., Cornell University, 2004, “Duke Law & Technology Review 2008 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 2,” pg lexis//um-ef) B. Nanotechnology Risks P8 The same novel properties making nanomaterials commercially appealing also pose potentially serious risks to human health and to the environment . n22 Nanoparticles can enter the human body through skin absorption, ingestion or inhalation. n23 Once they enter the body, because of their size, nanoparticles can be carried past the blood-brain barrier into brain cells and can pass through lung and liver tissue. n24 Studies indicate that unique attributes of insoluble nanoparticles--a small diameter and large surface area--significantly increase toxicity. n25 Some nanomaterials cause oxidative stress and localized immune lesions, and may lead to other tissue and cellular damage. n26 Nanoparticles are also linked to dangerous air, soil and water pollutants . n27 A Rice University study showed that certain individual insoluble nanoparticles become very water-soluble and bacteriocidal when they aggregate . n28 The study raised concerns that nanoparticle properties can endanger ecosystems by killing bacteria constituting the base of the food chain . n29 The existing methods of filtering and removing nanoparticles from water and air are very cost intensive and generally unreliable. n30 P9 The environmental and health risks that nonmaterial variants pose have attracted sparse scientific attention. A report by Lux Research indicates that over 10,000 nanotechnology research articles were published in 2005, of those, approximately fifty focused on nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety issues. n31 The dearth of academic and industry attention in studying nanotechnology risk is less surprising when one considers that federal funding for health and environmental risk research represents only four percent of the proposed federal investment. n32 Postponing research of nanotechnology risks until after health and environmental damage manifests is unwise. Indeed, if industry experience with asbestos, ammonia, methyl chloride, sulfur dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons is any indicator of the consequences of disregarding risks during the early stages of production and distribution, n33 then neglecting to adequately plan for these risks will lead to "lengthy regulatory battles, costly cleanup efforts, expensive litigation quagmires, and painful public-relations debacles." n34 Nanotoxins Lack of regulations causes the spread of nanotoxins Dhawan and Sharma 11 [Alok Dhawan, principal scientist, Vyom Sharma, senior research fellow at the Nanomaterial Toxicology Group, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, “Address risk of Nanotech Toxicity” http://www.scidev.net/global/technology/opinion/address-risk-of-nanotech-toxicity-1.html] But developing countries still lack awareness of the potential hazards of nano-based consumer products, and only a few guidance documents are available in the public domain. A company in India already claims to be the world's largest manufacturer of nanotech-based fabrics. Many other companies that synthesise nanoparticles — for use in cosmetics, for example, or water filtration devices — are emerging in countries such as China and India. Framing regulations and guidelines for the synthesis, use and disposal of nanomaterials is of great importance for the responsible development of nanotechnology in developing nations. International organisations and developed nations can assist them by sharing scientific data and technologies for assessing environmental and health safety. And to control occupational exposures, the regulatory framework should include mandatory documentation of the nanomaterials developed and personnel involved, and training workers to take precautions. Our institute, the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, has recently published guidance on the safe handling of nanomaterials in research laboratories, a step in the right direction. [2] Implications, not just applications But the vast majority of government funding in developing nations is spent on research into the applications, rather than the implications, of nanotechnology. For example, out of more than 200 research projects funded during 2001– 10 by the Department of Science and Technology in India under its flagship Nano Mission programme, only one was directly related to nanoparticle toxicity studies (and was awarded to our institute). As a result, scientists may fail to identify any impacts of nanotechnology that are specific to populations or the use of a product in poor countries — patterns of environmental distribution and exposure could be different in developing nations. Current research on nanotoxicity does not take into account how different local environments and populations can influence risk. People in developing countries may be more prone to adverse effects of nanoparticles because of underlying health conditions and malnutrition. Moreover, genetic susceptibility to toxic effects varies in diverse ethnic groups and geographical areas. The scientific community needs to identify these information gaps before developing regulations and standard methodologies for nanotoxicity assessment. Regs k Solvency Nanotech can cure disease but faces barriers – lack of regulations, lack of private incentives, little governmental focus Moore 07 – Director of research at Pew Health group, previous deputy director of the Wilson Center for Scholars’ Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (Julia, “Nanotech promises big things for poor – but will promises be kept?”, Wilson Center, 2/27/07, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/poennpb022607.php)//BD WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Nanotechnology has the potential to generate enormous health benefits for the more than five billion people living in the developing world," according to Dr. Peter A. Singer, senior scientist at the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health and Professor of Medicine at University of Toronto. "Nanotechnology might provide less-industrialized countries with powerful new tools for diagnosing and treating disease, and might increase the availability of clean water."¶ "But it remains to be seen whether novel applications of nanotechnology will deliver on their promise. A fundamental problem is that people are not engaged and are not talking to each other. Business has little incentive—as shown by the lack of new drugs for malaria, dengue fever and other diseases that disproportionately affect people in developing countries—to invest in the appropriate nanotechnology research targeted at the developing world. Government foreign assistance agencies do not often focus, or focus adequately, on science and technology. With scant public awareness of nanotechnology in any country, there are few efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and community groups to examine how nanotechnology could be directed toward, for example, improving public health in the developing world."¶ Dr. Singer’s group in Toronto published a study in 2005 identifying and ranking the ten nanotechnologies most likely to benefit the developing world in the near future. Nanotechnology applications related to energy storage, production, and conversion; agricultural productivity enhancement; water treatment and remediation; and diagnosis and treatment of diseases topped the list. Dr. Singer’s group has also shown that there is a surprising amount of nanotechnology R&D activity in several developing countries, and that these nations are directing their nanotechnology innovation systems to address their more pressing needs.¶ "Countries like Brazil, India, China and South Africa have significant nanotechnology research initiatives that could be directed toward the particular needs of the poor. But there is still a danger—if market forces are the only dynamic—that small minorities of people in wealthy nations will benefit from nanotechnology breakthroughs in the health sector, while large majorities, mainly in the developing world, will not ," noted Dr. Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. "Responsible development of nanotechnology must include benefits for people in both rich and poor nations and at relatively low cost. This also requires that careful attention be paid to possible risks nanotechnology poses for human health and the environment." ¶ Dr. Piotr Grodzinski, director of the Nanotechnology Alliance for Cancer at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH) discussed the impact of nanotechnology on diagnostics and therapies for cancer. He said, "It is my belief that nanomaterials and nanomedical devices will play increasingly critical and beneficial roles in improving the way we diagnose, treat, and ultimately prevent cancer and other diseases. But we face challenges; the complexity of clinical implementation and the treatment cost may cause gradual, rather than immediate, distribution of these novel yet effective approaches."¶ "For example, in the future, it may be possible for citizens in Bangladesh to place contaminated water in inexpensive transparent bottles that will disinfect the water when placed in direct sunlight, or for doctors in Mexico to give patients inhalable vaccines that do not need refrigeration," Dr. Maynard noted. "Nanotechnologies could revolutionize health care in developing countries and make treatments more readily available for diseases that claim millions of lives around the world each year." 2AC Bioweapons Add-on A) Unregulated nanotech allows disease engineering to evade countermeasures Kosal 10 [Margaret E. Kosal. assistant professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “The security implications of Nanotechnology” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. July/August 2010.] Nano-enabled materials and technologies may also be used to evade today’s medical countermeasures. Vaccines, antivirals, and antibiotics are the current first defense against many biological weapons. Nanotechnology may be used for this application in two different ways. First, nanotechnology can be an enabling tool to develop a weapon that would not be affected by a known countermeasure. Nanotechnology may use inorganic materials to mask biological ones in ways that are beyond the detection capabilities of most systems. Second, nanotechnology could be used to disrupt the immune system through either suppression or overstimulation and prevent it from functioning . Compared to other possibilities, nanotechnology provides a mechanism to introduce, for instance, a bioregulator into cells, which could then cause a cascade of immune responses, among other things. Certain nanoparticles can also trigger an immune response. A weapon developed to disrupt the entire immune system would not require knowledge of what countermeasures are in place. The delivery of interfering RNA for the alteration, activation, or silencing of genes has been tried with limited success using conventional means. Nano-enabled delivery is seen as one possible methodology to overcome that hurdle. Nano O/Ws N/W Risk of nanotech confrontation more important than nuclear war Gubrud 97 (Mark Avrum Gubrud, a research associate, Center for Superconductivity Research (University of Maryland, College Park), is ''a physicist, writer and social activist, November 1997, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/, “Nanotechnology and International Security”) The vexing questions of outer space and sea law, and the division of resources that may become valuable in the future, must be addressed before these issues become a source of international conflict, that is, before the technology is developed which makes what has heretofore been viewed as a "commons" an attractive target for sovereign ownership.¶ In spite of the arguments made above that nuclear weapons might serve as a stabilizing factor in a nanotechnic confrontation, continuing and completing the job of nuclear disarmament is an urgent priority. It is inexcusable to leave our people and our civilization exposed to the danger of nuclear annihilation at a time when there are few sources of tension between the major nuclear powers and none that are considered remotely serious enough to occasion a crisis that could lead to war. A nanowar would be worse than any nuclear conflict ever Gubrud 97 (Mark Avrum Gubrud, a research associate, Center for Superconductivity Research (University of Maryland, College Park), is ''a physicist, writer and social activist, November 1997, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/, “Nanotechnology and International Security”) The nanotechnic era will be fundamentally different from the era in which nuclear weapons were developed and came to dominate the possibilities for global violence.¶ The bombed-out cities of the Second World War, and the nuclear holocausts of our imagination, have persuaded rational minds that there can be no expectation of a meaningful victory in total war between states armed with hundreds of deliverable nuclear weapons. From that point of view, war is obsolete, at least direct and open war between great powers.¶ Nanotechnology will carry this evolution to the next step: deterrence will become obsolete, as it will not be possible to maintain a stable armed peace between nanotechnically-armed rivals. The implications of this statement stand in sharp contradiction to the traditions of a warrior culture and to the assumptions that currently guide policy in the United States and in its potential rivals.¶ Postscript¶ The history of war in the modern technological era is a history of surprise. Time and again, technology proves its power against our vulnerable bodies. A vast destructive potential is kept sealed until the time of battle, and when the seals are broken, we are surprised by how much vaster the devastation is than even the last terrible war. Order an attack over the trench lines... Surprise! The guns and artillery turn your brave soldiers into hamburger as fast as you can feed them into the grinder. Unleash a war of conquest... Surprise! Fifty million dead, your great cities in ruin, the survivors cold and starving. Start a nuclear exchange... Well, we were warned.¶ It was technology, not policy, that forced the doctrine of deterrence on us, just as it was technology that determined the outlines of the nuclear arms race, once the decision to pursue nuclear confrontation had been made. The logic of military technology produced a confrontation so complex and unmanageable, and with such short time lines for decision and action, that it threatened to explode in spite of "assured destruction." Again, people were intelligent enough to recognize realities, and to place restraints on the offensive arms race while shelving futile dreams of defense.¶ If technological realities now demand that we go further, and give up the warrior tradition, the illusion of independence and the vanity of sovereign self-defense, will we heed these demands, or will we try to preserve the institutions and attitudes of an earlier epoch, until we are surprised by a disaster beyond even our worst nuclear nightmares? If it is impossible to maintain an armed confrontation between nanotechnology-armed and hostile nations, then this is exactly our dilemma. Regulations Bad No Legal Definition Regulations fail – no legal definition Suppan 11 [Steve Suppan, a policy analyst at IATP since 1994, “Racing Ahead: U.S. Agri-Nanotechnology in the Absence of Regulation”, Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, June 29, 2011, http://www.iatp.org/documents/racing-ahead-us-agri-nanotechnology-in-the-absence-ofregulation”]//PP But none of these products are regulated by U.S. federal agencies. Research and development for agricultural and food applications of nanotechnology has expanded rapidly in recent years, with over $50 billion in global public investment and at least as much in privately funded research. At least 1,300 products with Engineered Nanotechnology Materials (ENMs) have been commercialized, despite myriad uncertainties about the public health and environmental effects of ENMs. These uncertainties result, in part, from novel physical, chemical and biological properties that are due to the extremely small size of these particles, which may range from 1 to 300 nanometers (the diameter of a human hair is about 80,000 nanometers). The exponentially greater surface-to-mass ratio of nanoscale materials results in different properties and uses than what is possible for the macro-scale counterparts of those materials. It is not yet clear what human health hazards may be created when nano-particles are ingested, or the extent to which ENMs might migrate from food packaging to the food and hence through the entire human body. Several steps are needed to arrive at an operative and mandatory regulatory structure for nanotechnology products and processes. There is no agreed legal definition of what constitutes an ENM. Regulators do not have an official registry needed to regulate products already in the market nor an inventory of products in development. As of March 2011, the nongovernmental Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) had registered more than 1,300 products whose manufacturers claim to include ENMs, and estimates that the number could grow to 3,400 by 2020. The lack of definition is not just a technical issue, but also a political challenge. The decision to commit to binding legal definitions would be predicated on related decisions to regulate and a commitment to ensure the human, technical and financial resources to implement and enforce regulations. Even if, after the June EPA guidance on submitting ENMs for EPA review, definitions could be determined, and adequate resources provided, it will be difficult to require product data from commercialization applicants. A research project to estimate ENM production levels found that most companies surveyed regarded production levels as confidential business information (CBI) that they refused to disclose, even after the researchers guaranteed company confidentiality. There are EHS risks that regulators could begin to assess, if they had nanotech product data, on the basis of current peer-reviewed scientific literature. Chinese researchers, for example, have discovered in animal testing that absorption of nano-silver may interfere with the replication of DNA molecules and can reroute molecular networks that could create genetic mutations. Nano-silver, among myriad other uses, is incorporated into food packaging materials to kill pathogenic bacteria and thereby extend a food’s shelf life. Regulations Fail Regulations fail – we need to reframe the debate Vaughan 12 [Steven Vaughan, SET Lecturer in Obligations at the Law School, Cardiff University and a former associate with Latham & Watkins and Freshfields, “Laying down the law on nanotechnology”, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/11/law-nanotechnology-regulation]//PP Regulating nanotechnology is difficult because of the myriad ways in which nanomaterials can be used and due to their global impact - the fact that product X made in the US can travel via Europe and be sold in China. There is also a real issue in knowing when and how to regulate: with hindsight it may be too little, too late or too much, too soon. A balance needs to be struck between the benefits from nano (societal, environmental and economic) and the potential risks. How we as a society deal with uncertainty, how we respond to scientific innovation and how we frame the debate on risk and regulation – these are all so very important. As we saw with asbestos, it may be the difference between life and death. Sometimes, size really does matter. Regulations bad – too many nuances within the market to be effective Suppan 11 [Steve Suppan, a policy analyst at IATP since 1994, “Racing Ahead: U.S. Agri-Nanotechnology in the Absence of Regulation”, Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, June 29, 2011, http://www.iatp.org/documents/racing-ahead-us-agri-nanotechnology-in-the-absence-ofregulation”]//PP The range of food and agricultural nanotechnology applications includes making toxins more bio-available in pesticides, targeting nutrients in smaller doses, improving the texture of ice cream and detecting bacteria in packaged foods. Under current rules, companies have the discretion to determine whether a macro-substance already considered by the company to be safe and therefore not reportable to the FDA, deemed to be likewise safe and hence non-reportable in its nanoscale form. In addition, the exponentially larger surface-to-mass ratio of ENMs, compared to that of macroversions of the “same” materials, will make the determination of Acceptable Daily Intakes impossible if companies are not required to submit data to regulators for their independent assessment . In 2008, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA) brought together industry representatives, government regulators and NGOs to consider how EPA and FDA might regulate generic and hypothetical food packaging incorporating ENMs. The project revealed challenges to FDA’s present regulatory process for food packaging materials, including: 1.) validating methodologies to characterize ENM properties to determine whether ENMs might migrate into food; 2.) validating migration study protocols that would determine consumer exposure to ENMs; 3.) evaluating whether current FDA set dietary concentration triggers for toxicity testing are adequate for ENMs; and 4.) determining whether toxicological data for the macro-scale counterparts of ENMs have any utility for predictive toxicology and safety assessment. But these challenges are not just theoretical. The Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Andrew Schneider has reported that some fruits and vegetables exported from Latin America are coated with nano-particles to extend their shelf life. Based on a review of patent filings, regulators have some knowledge of the ingredients of food nano-coatings. These ingredients include nanosilver and nano-zinc oxide as anti-microbials to combat bacteria; nano-silica to prevent water content loss and to ensure the film’s transparency; and nano-titanium dioxide to prevent deterioration due to ultraviolet rays. The macro forms of these ingredients are permitted food additives, but testing has not yet been done to assess their safety at nano-scale. Administrative, technical and resources constraints create enormous hurdles to effective import inspection of food nanocoatings and food packaging using ENMs. Because of, or perhaps despite, the scientific, budgetary and infrastructural difficulties of developing methods to simply and reliably measure the presence of ENMs in food, feed and food packaging materials, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international food standards body, may consider in July whether or not to include nanotechnology in its strategic plan for 2013–2018. Codex standards are presumed to be authoritative by the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures for the purpose of trade facilitation. There are many reasons why the commission should undertake work on agrinanotechnology, not the least of which is that such products are already being traded without regulation or risk assessment on which to base regulations. At the same time, Codex standards require the scientific advice of FAO/WHO expert meetings and/or standing committees, such as the Joint FAO/WHO Committee on Food Additives. However, FAO and WHO member governments have not made the funding of such scientific advice a Codex priority. There is a risk, however, that if standards are developed before member countries have effective rules and resources to do mandatory pre-market safety assessments and post-market surveillance of foods with ENMs, Codex standards would only facilitate greater trade without adequate regulatory enforcement capacity. U.S. Regs Ineffective US nanotech regulations fail – low safety standards, no testing for risks, no monitored research Soliman 12 - agricultural economist, attorney, and researcher focused on legal and economic issues in the Agriculture, Resource and Food sectors (Adam, “The Need for Stronger Nanotechnology Regulation”, Food Safety News, 10/16/2012, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/why-we-should-have-more-regulations-onnanotechnology/#.UfV_zI21F6I)//BD Legislation governing the use of nanoparticles is limited around the world, particularly in the U.S. In 2007, a report released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Nanotechnology Task Force 33 stated that despite the ‘special properties’ of nanomaterials, no further regulation is needed (3).¶ This report was opposed by environmental group Friends of the Earth and the International Center for Technology Assessment. The organizations filed a petition with FDA urging it to take action to highlight the risks associated with nanotechnology (4). As a result, the federal Nanotechnology Research and Development Act was passed in 2003.¶ The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was also developed to assess the risk posed by substances, and to provide authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in regulating them (5). The TSCA set out provisions to protect living systems against unknown risks of new or engineered substances by regulating and testing new and existing chemicals. However, the EPA does not hold much sway in the American political sphere. In fact, the U.S. legislature does not even require pre-market approval of consumer goods; the FDA relies solely on manufacturers to ensure product safety (6). Moreover, only evidence of a very specific harm associated with a product can elicit legal restrictions, and nanoparticles have not yet been tested for such specific risks.¶ The EU organization Strategy for Nanotechnology asserts that nanotechnology has the potential to enhance quality of life and industrial competitiveness, and therefore lobbies aggressively for minimal legislation on nanotechnology. Current laws state that anyone producing or importing nanomaterials into Europe is required to provide written notification to public authorities; this notification requires the manufacturer to conduct research illustrating the properties and dangers of the product (7). However, this research is not monitored, making the data difficult to validate and allowing manufacturers to exaggerate, forge or omit crucial information.¶ In Hong Kong, the Centre for Food Safety has referred to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) requirement for risk assessment on nanoscale materials for assessing nanoparticles before they can be used in food (8). Additionally, the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance requires all food sold in Hong Kong to be fit for human consumption. But consumer goods lack specific legislation monitoring nanotechnology’s expanding applications. Furthermore, no comprehensive and compulsory danger assessment scheme has been introduced to manage the potential risks posed by nanoparticles to public and environmental health. ¶ Demand for Legislation No Risk/No Impact Nanomaterials are no risk Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP This objection asserts that existing laws and regulations are adequate to account for nanotechnology, because nanomaterials are essentially the same kinds of substances that we have been using for decades. That is to say, a carbon nanotube is still only made up of carbon, and nano-sunblock is still only made up of zinc or titanium oxide – and these are materials that current regulations have proven sufficient to handle. In some cases, nanomaterials are simply much smaller versions of the familiar thing. In other cases, they are the same material with a different molecular arrangement. Therefore, we do not need stricter laws to account for nanotechnology. In fact, nanotechnology is something that has arguably existed since the beginning of the worl d, if not earlier: “Nanostructures – objects with nanometer scale features – are not new nor were they first created by man. There are many examples of nanostructures in nature in the way that plants and animals have evolved. Similarly there are many natural nanoscale materials...catalysts, porous materials, certain minerals, soot particles, etc. that have unique properties particularly because of the nanoscale features” [19]. Status Quo Solves Regs Status quo Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP This objection to the stricter-law argument asserts that, as a matter of fact, current regulations are enough to safeguard the public from these harms. They have served us well over the years, and without definitive proof that nanomaterials are actually harmful in consumer products or manufacturing, it is premature to subject the nanotechnology industry to more regulations. Analysis This objection disputes premise P2 in our formalized argument, thereby throwing into question all conclusions from C1 to C3. Our evaluation of this objection has already been discussed in the preceding section, where we pointed out that today’s controversy over Teflon, as just one example, shows that current laws and regulations are fallible and probably do not fully protect us from EHS risks in all consumer products or their manufacturing. Further, even if current laws are adequate to account for nanomaterials in production today and in the near future, the industry is still learning about the science and working on new materials, and these materials may slip past existing laws. Either way, it is also prudent to believe that the processes we have established to regulate business in general are imperfect and will continue to be a work in progress, as long as businesses and research organizations continue to innovate. Precautionary principle Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP This objection maintains that the Precautionary Principle (PP) is not an obviously-correct or commonsense rule that we should follow, and therefore the stricter-law argument falls apart, since it depends critically on the PP. The most serious criticism we examine here is that the PP represents a risk-averse strategy that is too conservative, at least as it applies to the considered case of nanotechnology where the EHS risk is still unclear [22]. Risk aversion, the argument goes, is not the only workable strategy in life, business or politics. After all, if Americans never took unnecessary or perhaps unreasonable risks, then we never would have accomplished such things as expanding the country westward to California, inventing the airplane and putting a man on the moon. In fact, America was built on the backs of explorers and frontiersman, such as Christopher Columbus and Captain John Smith, who risked and sometimes lost everything. And many other nations can say similar things about their forebearers, pioneers and inventors. Such may be the case with nanotechnology: it is a new frontier in science that, while admittedly contains unknown danger, also holds much promise. However, if we were to follow the PP, we may lose a great opportunity to develop a science that has been called “the Next Industrial Revolution” [23]. Self Regulation Self-regulation solves comparatively better than governmental regulation Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP This position opposes more governmental regulation as a way to mitigate EHS risks. Rather, it advocates self-regulation as an alternative, such that if any additional regulation is needed, it should be left up to the industry to decide what measures are appropriate. There are several reasons why this view is attractive to many [27]. First, it promotes a smaller governmental footprint in business and individual lives, so it instantly appeals to libertarians and some conservatives. Also, it may make more sense for the nanotechnology industry, that presumably knows its field the better than lawmakers do and have a real stake in its work-processes, to devise and implement any regulations, rather than some distant bureaucracy whose edicts are inevitably borne from political compromise. By monitoring one’s own work, selfregulation fosters a sense of responsibility within the industry. Further, self-regulation seems to work, as evidenced by any number of professional code of ethics. Analysis A persistent criticism to the idea of self-regulation is that it seems to let the proverbial fox guard the hen-house, or in other words, there is a sizable conflict of interest [28]. Can we trust an industry – any industry – to make its own rules when money is involved? Can they fairly create processes that protect EHS interests of the public, even at the expense of their own interests, financial or otherwise? Some have called it a pragmatic paradox to ask a person or organization to obey the law and, at the same time, be the law [29]. Because there is no real separation between those enforcing regulations and those subject to the regulations, the door seems to be open for selfimposed regulations to be selectively enforced and for potentially covering up illegal or unsafe practices. Of course, an enlightened company might see that it is in their best interest to deliver only safe products, since harming one’s own customers is counterproductive to one’s reputation and business as well as opens the company to possible litigation. But will every company arrive at the same conclusion, ignore shortterm gains for long-term interests and follow the rules? For self-regulation to work, nearly every industry actor needs to comply, since all it takes is one clever company to sidestep industry-imposed regulations for possible catastrophe to occur, i.e., the EHS risks may still exist and are not sufficiently mitigated by self-regulation. The diagnosis of why actors fail to cooperate even though it is in their better interests to do so – also known as a “Prisoners’ Dilemma” – is well covered in literature [30]. As groups such as OPEC have shown – whose members are notorious for ignoring their own self-imposed quotas for oil production, even though compliance gives them a means to control greater oil prices – it is a real challenge to get organizations to do what they have committed to, even if breaking that commitment will make them worse off in the long run. Further, if governmental regulations are believed to be imperfect because they contain political compromise, it is unclear why matters should be different with selfregulation. Regs Kill Devp Regulation hinders nanotechnology development Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP This objection, perhaps the most popular of the seven considered, suggests that if stricter laws were imposed, there would be unacceptable costs or harms to the nanotechnology industry now. Few objectors have specified these costs, but we can imagine what some might be. If tougher regulation makes it more difficult for a nanotechnology product to be delivered to market, e.g. due to extended product testing cycles or more comprehensive environmental impact reports, then a business can reasonably expect to generate less revenue over a given period, since they no longer or won’t as quickly have that product on the shelves. This also means businesses might not be able to afford to keep the same number of researchers or other employees on staff, leading to a loss of jobs. Without as many active researchers – including those in academic or other non-business labs, to the extent that these new laws affect their work – nanotechnology will not advance as quickly as it might otherwise have. And if other nations do not have the same stringent restrictions that we do, the US may suffer a real competitive disadvantage globally. (We will discuss other potential costs later, but these seem to be the primary ones associated with this objection.) Indeed, a recent report from Cientifica argues that today, even without the stronger regulations proposed, the pace of funding, research and development in the US is not fast enough to sustain business efforts and compete with other nations [31]. The report warns that not enough government spending in nanotechnology is focused on areas of immediate commercial impact. And accessing this funding is a slow process, taking an average of 2 to 3 years before it even reaches the lab. The report also finds that, as a proportion of its gross domestic product, the Japanese government spends three times as much on the technology than the US does. As it applies to the Other Harms Objection, this report would lend defense to the claim that the nanotechnology industry needs more support, not more hurdles that would slow it down further. Regulations bad prevents us from realizing future benefits Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP If there is something reasonable, but not completely convincing, about the Other Harms Objection, then we can perhaps strengthen it here by pushing its time horizon farther out, giving the argument more consideration [36]. In doing so, we can suggest that the preceding objection really did not consider enough harms: it looked only at immediate or shortterm harms associated with stricter laws. But nanotechnology is something that is forecasted to give humanity profound benefits once it matures, and we have yet to consider those goals in pursuing nanotechnology. If we slow the industry down today, will that prevent or hinder us from realizing these benefits later – benefits that may plausibly outweigh EHS risks that exist either today or in the future? In the following, we will briefly present some of the risks of moving too slowly in nanotechnology that could be advanced by the Future Harms Objection, which is not an objection we commonly see but is a view held or implied by at least some nanotechnology advocates. Taken together, these risks raise the stakes involved in the stricter-law debate and may present a more compelling challenge. Nano Good/Bad Nano Good Warming Nanotech key to solve warming – can create new sources of carbon free energy quickly Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) Invest in nanotechnology for clean energy. Experts believe that combating global warming may require the ability to generate 15 to 30 terawatts of car-bon-free energy worldwide by 2050. By comparison, today’s total global energy consumption is a little less than 15 terawatts. Considering that 85 percent of our current global primary energy consumption is from fossil fuels, this is a daunting challenge. Researchers have identified a variety of ways in which nanotechnology could help solve our longterm energy challenges. These include a dramatic reduction in the cost of photovoltaics, direct photoconversion of light and water to produce hydrogen, and transformational advances in energy storage and transmission. The United States desperately needs an Apollo-type project to reduce the threat of climate change and its dependence on Middle East oil. Nanotechnology could play a key role in creating new sources of carbon-free energy that are competitive with fossil fuels. Solves Tech Nanotech will be revolutionary technology and spur education Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) Advocates made a number of arguments on behalf of the NNI, which we believe are still valid today. First, nanoscale S&E has the potential to be as important as previous general-purpose technologies, such as the steam engine, the transistor, and the Internet. At a size of 1 to 100 nanometers, materials, structures, and devices exhibit new and often useful physical, electrical, mechanical, optical, and magnetic properties. Second, expanded funding for nanotechnology can help revitalize the physical sciences and engineering, because it builds on disciplines such as condensed-matter physics, materials science, chemistry, and engineering. Third, the NNI will help attract and prepare the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. Because roughly two-thirds of the funding for the NNI flows to university researchers, it directly supports undergraduates, graduates, and postdocs. Fourth, it is clear that realizing the potential of nanotechnology will require supporting long-term high-risk research that is beyond the time horizons of corporations, which are understandably focused on nearer-term research and product development. As President Clinton noted in his Caltech speech, “Some of these [nanotechnology] research goals will take 20 or more years to achieve. But that is why . . . there is such a critical role for the federal government.” Finally, a 1998 technology evaluation concluded that global leadership in nanotechnology was up for grabs. We hoped that the NNI would allow the United States to strengthen its position in this critical technology. Nanotech can cure cancer and incentivizes universities to invest in their educational services Lane et. al 7 (Neal Lane, professor of physics at Rice University, was director of NSF from 1993 to 1998 and science advisor to President Clinton beginning in 1998. Thomas Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley, was deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy and deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Clinton administration, 2007, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation, http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html) The NNI funding has resulted in an expansion of fundamental understanding of nanoscale phenomena and many research results with potentially revolutionary applications. In widely cited journals such as Science, Nature, and Physical Review Letters,the percentage of journal articles related to nanoscale S&E has increased from 1 percent in 1992 to over 5 percent by 2003. The breadth of activity is impressive. For example, researchers are developing:¶ The use of gold nanoshells with localized heating for the targeted destruction of malignant cancer cells, an approach that involves minimal side effects.¶ Genetically engineered viruses that can self-assemble inorganic materials such as gallium arsenide.¶ Low-cost hybrid solar cells that combine inorganic “nanorods” with conducting polymers.¶ A scale that can detect a zeptogram, the weight of a single protein.¶ Quantum dots that can “slow light,” opening the door to all-optical networks.¶ Nanoscale iron particles that can reduce the costs of cleaning up contaminated groundwater.¶ The increased funding has also triggered broader institutional responses at leading U.S. research universities. Universities are hiring more faculty in this interdisciplinary area, investing in new buildings that are capable of housing 21st-century nanoscience research and creating shared facilities for nanoscale imaging, characterization, synthesis, and fabrication. Colleges and departments are experimenting in educating truly interdisciplinary nanoscientists and engineers, with new courses, lab rotations, and two or more faculty mentors in different disciplines. Environment Nanotech solves the hydrogen economy- faster generation, integral to solve Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) Hydrogen (and oxygen as a by‐product) can be generated through electrolysis or directly catalysed decomposition of water. Hydrogen can then potentially be stored indefinitely, although its small molecular size and gaseous nature make storage difficult when combined with the need for substantial energy densities. Using fuel cells, hydrogen can be reacted with oxygen (usually from the atmosphere) to generate water and usable electricity. Nanotechnology is likely to be a key component in generation, storage and use of hydrogen as a fuel source. If the electricity used to generate the hydrogen from water is produced via renewable means, this system could be used to store and transport excess electricity. Hydrogen has the potential to replace traditional hydrocarbons as the major source of energy in the UK. There are three stages to this process where nanotechnology is likely to play a leading role: • the generation of hydrogen from water • the storage of hydrogen • the controlled reaction of hydrogen with oxygen to form electricity (fuel cell). Hydrogen generation via electrolysis This method electrically charges two plates containing a catalyst which converts water into oxygen and hydrogen. Nanoparticles and nanostructures on the surface of these plates can increase the overall efficiency and speed of this process. This technique could reduce the cost of developing an extensive hydrogen transport network by greater production of hydrogen by the end user. Recent research into porphyrin (a common molecule used by plants in photosynthesis) nanotubes with particles of platinum coated onto their surface has shown promise as an effective catalyst for photolytic splitting of water. Although in its early stages, there is the potential for nanotechnology to provide a solution from an unexpected avenue. Light metal hydrides react with hydrogen, essentially encapsulating the hydrogen on the surface of the compound. To maximise hydrogen absorption, such materials are likely to be in the form of nanopowders or nanoporous matrices to expose the largest surface area to hydrogen gas. Therefore nanotechnology is integral to this method of hydrogen storage. Nanotech solves fuel additives and efficiency, 7% improvement, tech available Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) Fuel and lubricant additives are near or at‐market sol utions that can deliver small but globally significant carbon savings and emissions reductions through use in conventional engine systems without modification. We estimate that nanotechnology can deliver 7 % improvement in fuel consumption and pollution emissions across the two applications with greatest improvements in diesel engine fuel consumption and emissions. Given the concerns of climate change due to fossil fuel consumption and threats to public health from particulate emissions from road transport, there is a justification for government intervention for the common good. This could take the form of accelerating health and safety research, combined with support for validation trials. Given that this technology is currently available, it is possible to estimate its implementation cost. This is approximately £20‐£80 per tonne of carbon dioxide and therefore compares favourably with Defra’s figure of the social cost of carbon at around £70 per tonne. It also compares favourably with the cost of using bio‐diesel estimated to give a carbon cost of £140 per tonne of carbon dioxide. A key issue will be the trade off (if any) between support for such modest near market developments and support for longer term more radical changes that will deliver much greater environmental benefit, but will require greater system changes in order to achieve them. Supporting solely such near market solutions may simply reinforce the current fossil fuel based technology unless funding for alternative, more resource efficient technologies is provided at the same time. Nanocoatings for turbines is a much less contentious area in which conventional R&D support aids the development of advanced coatings. We estimate that nanotechnology based coatings and surface treatments are likely to improve turbine efficiencies by about 0.5% after fuller development. However potential risks are much lower and, because of the primacy of specification and approval procedures, government policy has much less capacity for influence. We propose therefore that there are no special policy issues of contention to be raised. Nanotech solves solar cells - improves overall efficiency, and are extremely cheeap Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) Photovoltaic technologies offer a potentially unlimited source of emission free, renewable energy by converting sunlight into electricity. The development of this alternative energy source is dependent on the availability of the energy generator and primarily solar radiation. This is clearly dependant on location and weather conditions. More favourable sites, such as Saharan Africa, can provide approximately 2,300KWh/m2 of energy per year, whereas, in the UK, the higher latitudes and less accommodating weather conditions result in practical levels possibly as low as 800KWh/m2 of energy per year. Based on current state of the art solar cells, this equates to approximately 20‐30m2 of solar cell required to power the average household. A potentially better metric than overall efficiency of a solar cell is to examine the cost of electricity generation. Currently, for the best suited sites, photovoltaic power generation, costs approximately €4‐5/W. Current estimates suggest that these costs can be reduced to €3.5/W by 2010 and €2/W by 2020, with a further decrease to about €1/W by 2030, but all these predictions are based on the assumption that major breakthroughs will occur in photovoltaic technologies. It is also assumed that energy conversion efficiencies will increase to between 30% and 50% after 2030. These major breakthroughs are, in part, predicted to emerge from the incorporation of nanotechnology. Nanoparticle silicon systems. It is hoped that by using nanoparticles of silicon the manufacturing costs can be reduced and (due to increases in surface area) the overall efficiency of the solar cell can be improved. However there are problems with the nanoparticles oxidising which limits the efficiency of the devices. New encapsulation technologies are required to abate this problem. Also the cost of silicon is a significant portion (approximately 40%) of the overall cost. Flexible film technology. A thin sheet of polymer can be coated in photovoltaic nanoparticles to create what is essentially a flexible solar cell. These flexible film solar cells could potentially be extremely cheap to produce (orders of magnitude cheaper than silicon cells). A major obstacle to the development of these systems is the development of a coating technology which provides flexible adhesion of the nanoparticles to the plastic film. Techniques such as inkjet printing or roll‐to‐roll printing may provide a high throughput solution. Nanotech solves batteries- greater and faster charges Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) The problems of range and power are being addressed. For example the Tesla Roadster fully electric sports car(due to be released in early 2008) has similar performance to a Porsche Boxster and has a range of 250 miles. However, its recharge time is still several hours. Nanotechnology is seen as a lead candidate to address this problem. In a Li‐ion battery, the recharge and discharge rate are limited by the rate of adsorption and desorption of lithium from the anode and cathode of the battery. An increase in surface area of the electrode will allow more lithium to absorb faster onto the surface of the electrode. Also, in theory, these systems can store greater charges because there is a larger surface area for the lithium to react with. Research on batteries involving nanotechnology is focused on developing nanostructured electrodes which provide a high surface area, are low cost, easy to produce and stable (to avoid reduction in battery performance over its lifetime). In the USA, Altairnano have replaced the carbon graphite electrode of a standard Li‐ion battery with a nanostructured lithium titanate spinel oxide (LTO) electrode. These electrodes are claimed to have a 100 times higher surface area than the standard graphite electrode speeding the recharge and discharge rate of the battery. The low reactivity of these materials reduces the reactions between the electrode and the electrolyte which can increase charging time. The low reactivity of the electrode also extends the lifetime of the battery and allows it to function in more extreme climates than conventional Li‐ion batteries. However, the battery holds less charge than a conventional Li‐ion battery. This battery system is being used by the Phoenix Motor Company (based in California) in an electric vehicle which is due for limited release in 2007. Using a special adaptor the car can be charged in under ten minutes or overnight using conventional mains plugs. It also addresses part of the stigma associated with electric powered vehicles, as it is certified for use on freeways, has a top speed of 95 mph and a range of 130 miles. It is planned to extend this range to 250 miles by 2008. Hence companies are claiming significant advances based on nanotechnologies in making electric cars competitive with liquid fuelled ones. These developments, if fully verified, are likely to be 5‐10 years from introduction onto the mass market. Qinetiq are collaborating with several major battery and automotive manufacturers to develop new batteries. The research is industrially sensitive but does involve using nanostructures to improve battery performance. Researchers at the University of St Andrews are developing nanostructured materials which are able to hold more lithium than standard Li‐ion battery electrodes. The development of these materials is likely to result in batteries with higher charge density. Bioterror Nanotech solves bioterror and disease Foladori et al 05 Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnology and the Developing World:¶ Will Nanotechnology Overcome Poverty or¶ Widen Disparities?”, 2005, Vol. 2, Issue 3, Article 11, http://estudiosdeldesarrollo.net/administracion/docentes/documentos_personales/11 947LBJ.pdf//VS) Ageing mechanisms could be retarded and ¶ even reversed, with the human lifespan’s being lengthened significantly. With these artificial sensors, a¶ person could become a bionic being, improving her biological capacities and developing others. Some ¶ even envision nanotechnology applications that will improve human perception and ability at¶ fundamental levels. The field of prostheses is also among the most promising.¶ In the materials field, one novelty will be intelligent nanoparticles. Your wardrobe, for example, ¶ could be reduced to one single article. The item of clothing you have will react to changes in ¶ temperature, rainfall, snow and sun, among other elements, keeping the body always at the programmed ¶ temperature. Furthermore, it will repel sweat and dust, which will mean that it will not require washing. ¶ As if this were not enough, it would stop bacteria or viruses from penetrating it, protecting it even from ¶ possible bioterrorist attacks. In the case of an accident, your clothes would have healing effects, offering ¶ first aid. The same that applies to clothing could be adapted to certain dwellings and modes of transport. ¶ Another novelty is that carbon nanotubes are stronger than steel and only 1/6 of its weight. This will have ¶ a special impact on the aerospace, construction, automobile industries and many others. The field of computer science will be one of the earliest industries affected and will enjoy the most ¶ revolutionary change. Computers can be a hundred times faster and much smaller and lighter, and can be ¶ custom built according to the tastes of the buyer in terms of design, size, shape, color, smell and ¶ resistance. Prototypes with built-in sensors will speed up designs, adapting to flexible production ¶ processes in different parts of the world, overcoming many of the barriers that distance now imposes. ¶ The old “just-in-time” production mode will become obsolete and may very well become the “as-youneed” mode of production. The possibilities for monopolistic concentration of production (global ¶ business enterprises) will multiply.¶ The combination of computerized systems, chemical laboratories, miniature sensors and living ¶ beings adapted to specific functions will revolutionize medicine (e.g., lab-on-a-chip) and also provide ¶ rapid solutions to the historical problems of contamination. Small bacteria with sensors may be able to ¶ consume bodies of water that have been contaminated by heavy metals, or decontaminate the atmosphere ¶ in record time. Nanocapsules with combined systems of sensors and additives will revolutionize the ¶ industries such as lubricants, pharmaceuticals and filters, to make no mention of others Immortality Nanotech revolutionizes biological functions—removes age restrictions—infinite resource access and space colonization solves overpopulation—our evidence assumes your warrants ***[not really sure how useful this card is, but it’s pretty badass]*** Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) The same technology, they say, can be used to prevent aging. Since aging is simply a breakdown in the biochemical processes of cells over time, and nanorobots can eventually be used to prevent any such breakdown, human cells and the bodies they form can be preserved in a healthy condition indefinitely. Inherent limits on the human lifespan need no longer exist in the nanotechnology era, and so they should be removed . Drexler and his colleagues thus favor the possibility of centuries-long life spans for any individual as a deliberate objective of human societies.[41] According to their worldview, the use of nanotechnology to preserve health and youth can and should enable the elimination of all weakness, infirmity, and limits on human ability. Any cellular or physiological process that exists in nature will, in all likelihood, be amenable to duplication and improvement by nanoscale devices. The resulting capability for full control of human cell structure and physiology will mean that handicaps like blindness, deafness, and paralysis need no longer exist. Artificial nanotech cells, organs, and limbs will permit elimination of age-old limits on strength, endurance, and agility. Bones could be made of diamond, for instance, or lungs rebuilt to breathe poisonous atmospheres. Brain enhancements by means of artificial, improved neurons will mean that limits on memory and intelligence need no longer exist. A single artificial neuron could store the entire Library of Congress, accessible to an individual on demand. Brains could have the ability to link directly via nanoengineered devices with computers, with other brains, or with the Internet. All persons, the nanotechnologist social agenda posits, should have access to physical and mental performance enhancements that seem, after extensive research, safe and beneficial.[42]¶ While nanotechnology alters the basics of human biology, nanotechnologists maintain, molecular manufacturing should be used to eliminate scarcity and poverty from society. In Drexler�s vision, self-replicating nanorobots able to reshape matter at will promise to bring abundance, prosperity, and comfort to the whole human population for the first time since humans arrived on Earth. In the age of nanotechnology, households inhabited by immortal, healthy, energetic enhanced humans could come equipped with home manufacturing devices able to provide all the basic necessities of life for very little cost. This low cost will result from three factors. First, the basic raw material of all manufacturing will become carbon, an element that the Earth�s environment provides in virtually limitless abundance. Second, the nanorobots that do the manufacturing will be self-replicating. You only need to build one � it will then copy itself as needed, for free, without human labor, so long as carbon raw materials are available. Third, Drexler predicates his vision on the argument that molecular manufacturing will ultimately be controlled by automated, artificial intelligence systems capable of operating largely without human direction. Such systems will be made possible, he contends, by nanomedical research into the structure and workings of the human brain. Self replication, abundant carbon, and artificial intelligence will, it is hoped, eliminate the scarcity of labor, raw materials and other resources that once limited the availability of products. Human material needs will be fulfilled simply by asking an automated manufacturing facility to make a desired object � whether it be food, a rocket engine, medical nanorobots, a kitchen knife, clothing, or a house.[43] ¶ On the issue of nanotech solutions to scarcity, the nanotechnologists� argument again goes: since we can, we should. To them, the self evident desirability of eradicating poverty and ensuring a healthy, prosperous life for all human beings outweigh, on balance, any potential objections to nanotechnology. Confronting fears that greatly lengthened life spans would lead to even greater overpopulation than exists today, the nanotech visionaries respond that nano-driven material abundance would provide for the population�s needs while nano-enabled space travel would provide greatly expanded living space . The entire solar system, and perhaps beyond, would become the home of humanity. Individual mobility, freedom, opportunity, and prosperity would be available to an unprecedented extent. The science and technology community would be morally remiss, Eric Drexler writes, if it failed to pursue this opportunity to build a decent life for the whole human family and put an end to the most ancient forms of human suffering.[44] Energy Nanotech solves clean energy and environmental sustainability Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) By permitting complete control over the structure of matter, nanotechnologists contend, molecular manufacturing will enable previously unthinkable advances in energy, environmental, and transportation systems. Molecule sized solar collectors and batteries, for example, could be woven directly into the structure of every manufactured object on Earth, providing an effectively limitless source of clean energy for technological civilization.[29] Swarms of nanorobots could be released into the Earth�s environment to break down and neutralize pollutant materials in the ground, air, and water.[30] Space Colonization Nanotech key to space colonization Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) And space travel could at last be made cheap and easily accessible to the entire population. Drexler has nanoengineered rocket about the size of a sports car that would carry a single person into orbit while weighing about 60 kilograms, absent passengers and fuel.[31] The lightness and minimal fuel requirements of such vehicles means they would be cheap to manufacture and operate, allowing large numbers of people ready access to Earth orbit and the regions beyond. Molecular manufacturing in space would be as cheap and quick as on Earth, thus allowing economical construction of the large, complex vehicles and facilities necessary for colonization of the solar system. The nanotechnology era, its enthusiasts predict, will finally see massive human expansion into the final frontier. [32]¶ Believers in nanotechnology�s potential depict a future filled with breath-taking technological marvels. postulated a Poverty/Resrouce Scarcity Nanotechnology ELIMINATES poverty and resource scarcity—comparatively outweighs any negative effects Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) While nanotechnology alters the basics of human biology, nanotechnologists maintain, molecular manufacturing should be used to eliminate scarcity and poverty from society . In Drexler�s vision, self-replicating nanorobots able to reshape matter at will promise to bring abundance, prosperity, and comfort to the whole human population for the first time since humans arrived on Earth. In the age of nanotechnology, households inhabited by immortal, healthy, energetic enhanced humans could come equipped with home manufacturing devices able to provide all the basic necessities of life for very little cost. This low cost will result from three factors. First, the basic raw material of all manufacturing will become carbon, an element that the Earth�s environment provides in virtually limitless abundance. Second, the nanorobots that do the manufacturing will be self-replicating. You only need to build one � it will then copy itself as needed, for free, without human labor, so long as carbon raw materials are available. Third, Drexler predicates his vision on the argument that molecular manufacturing will ultimately be controlled by automated, artificial intelligence systems capable of operating largely without human direction. Such systems will be made possible, he contends, by nanomedical research into the structure and workings of the human brain. Self replication, abundant carbon, and artificial intelligence will , it is hoped, eliminate the scarcity of labor, raw materials and other resources that once limited the availability of products . Human material needs will be fulfilled simply by asking an automated manufacturing facility to make a desired object � whether it be food, a rocket engine, medical nanorobots, a kitchen knife, clothing, or a house.[43]¶ On the issue of nanotech solutions to scarcity, the nanotechnologists� argument again goes: since we can, we should. To them, the self evident desirability of eradicating poverty and ensuring a healthy, prosperous life for all human beings outweigh , on balance, any potential objections to nanotechnology . Confronting fears that greatly lengthened life spans would lead to even greater overpopulation than exists today, the nanotech visionaries respond that nano-driven material abundance would provide for the population�s needs while nano-enabled space travel would provide greatly expanded living space. The entire solar system, and perhaps beyond, would become the home of humanity. Individual mobility, freedom, opportunity, and prosperity would be available to an unprecedented extent. The science and technology community would be morally remiss, Eric Drexler writes, if it failed to pursue this opportunity to build a decent life for the whole human family and put an end to the most ancient forms of human suffering.[44] Energy Nanotech is key to sustainable energy access—prefer our evidence, it cites an expert consensus Science Daily 05 (Science Daily Magazine, “Nanotechnology's Miniature Answers To Developing World's Biggest Problems”, 05/12/2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512120050.htm//VS) With a high degree of unanimity, panelists selected energy production, conversion and storage, along with creation of alternative fuels, as the area where nanotechnology applications are most likely to benefit developing countries.¶ "Economic development and energy consumption are inextricably linked," says Singer. "If nanotechnology can help developing countries to move towards energy self-sufficiency, then the benefits of economic growth will become that much more accessible."¶ Study leader Dr. Fabio Salamanca-Buentello explained that nano-structured materials are being used to build a new generation of solar cells, hydrogen fuel cells and novel hydrogen storage systems that will deliver clean energy to countries still reliant on traditional, non-renewable contaminating fuels.¶ As well, recent advances in the creation of synthetic nano-membranes embedded with proteins are capable of turning light into chemical energy.¶ "These technologies will help people in developing countries avoid recurrent shortages and price fluctuations that come with dependence on fossil fuels, as well as the environmental consequences of mining and burning oil and coal," he says. Ag Nanotech solves agricultural production and soil fertility Science Daily 05 (Science Daily Magazine, “Nanotechnology's Miniature Answers To Developing World's Biggest Problems”, 05/12/2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512120050.htm//VS) Number two on the list is agriculture, where science is developing a range of inexpensive nanotech applications to increase soil fertility and crop production, and help eliminate malnutrition - a contributor to more than half the deaths of children under five in developing countries.¶ Nanotech materials are in development for the slow release and efficient dosage of fertilizers for plants and of nutrients and medicines for livestock. Other agricultural developments include nano-sensors to monitor the health of crops and farm animals and magnetic nano-particles to remove soil contaminants.¶ Agriculture production in developing countries is key to GLOBAL food security and poverty reduction UN 08 (United Nations, “Addressing the global food crisis Key trade, investment and commodity policies in ¶ ensuring sustainable food security and ¶ alleviating poverty”, 2008, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/osg20081_en.pdf//VS) 15. There are less obvious structural long-term causes of the global ¶ food crisis that are just as significant and that have indeed led to have ¶ such a serious impact on food availability. These structural factors ¶ mainly affect the supply side – in particular, the difficulties many ¶ developing countries face in increasing agricultural production and ¶ productivity to meet food domestic consumption and for international ¶ trade. The causes of this production crisis have profound implications ¶ for food security (and poverty reduction) in terms of production, ¶ consumption and trade in developing countries. To a large extent, these problems stem from the inherent tensions that exist because the ¶ agriculture and food sectors are seen as being unlike any other economic ¶ sector. Such tensions raise important policy issues which will have to be ¶ addressed in a balanced manner so that factors that have contributed to ¶ the current crisis can be addressed for the benefit of all affected. ¶ 16. The fundamental factor underlying the supply shortage is that, ¶ particularly in the last two decades, agricultural productivity has been ¶ relatively low in developing countries and even decreasing in many ¶ LDCs – a symptom of long-term neglect of the agricultural sector. On ¶ average, annual agricultural productivity in LDCs (as measured by total ¶ factor production (land and labour)) between 1961 and 2003 showed a ¶ decline of 0.1 per cent, as against only about 0.6 per cent for developing ¶ countries. In LDCs and African countries, these low agriculture growth rates have had important adverse implications for economic ¶ growth and poverty reduction. Even in rapidly growing large developing ¶ countries such as India, however, many farmers continue ¶ to lead lives of ¶ mere subsistence Space Col/Asteroids Nanotechnology key to launch vehicles—overcomes status quo cost hurdles Globus et al 98 (A. Globus*, D. Bailey**, J. Han***, R. Jaffe****, C. Levit*****, R. Merkle******, D. Srivastava*******, * Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center. Research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the chemistry department of the University of California at Santa Cruz, ** senior scientist for the computational research department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, *** professor in geotechnical engineering at Department of Civil, Environmental, & Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas, ****no qualifications cited, ***** Creon Levit is a research scientist ¶ in the Advanced Supercomputing ¶ Division at NASA Ames Research ¶ Center, ****** computer scientist, researcher, and leading proponent of molecular manufacturing, ******* Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics¶ Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics, “NASA applications of molecular nanotechnology”, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, volume 51, pp. 145-152, 1998, http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/NASAapplications.html//VS) Launch Vehicles¶ [Drexler 92a] proposed a nanotechnology based on diamond and investigated its potential properties. In particular, he examined applications for materials with a strength similar to that of diamond (69 times strength/mass of titanium). This would require a very mature nanotechnology constructing systems by placing atoms on diamond surfaces one or a few at a time in parallel. Assuming diamondoid materials, [McKendree 95] predicted the performance of several existing single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle designs. The predicted payload to dry mass ratio for these vehicles using titanium as a structural material varied from < 0 (the vehicle won't work) to 36%, i.e., the vehicle weighs substantially more than the payload. With hypothetical diamondoid materials the ratios varied from 243% to 653%, i.e., the payload weighs far more than the vehicle. Using a very simple cost model ($1000 per vehicle kilogram) sometimes used in the aerospace industry, he estimated the cost per kilogram launched to low-Earth-orbit for diamondoid structured vehicles should be $153-412. This would meet NASA's 2020 launch to orbit cost goals. Estimated costs for titanium structured vehicles varied from $16,00059,000/kg. Although this cost model is probably adequate for comparison, the absolute costs are suspect.¶ [Drexler 92b] used a more speculative methodology to estimate that a four passenger SSTO weighing three tons including fuel could be built using a mature nanotechnology. Using McKendree's cost model, such a vehicle would cost about $60,000 to purchase -- the cost of today's high-end luxury automobiles.¶ These studies assumed a fairly advanced nanotechnology capable of building diamondoid materials. In the nearer term, it may be possible to develop excellent structural materials using carbon nanotubes. Carbon nanotubes have a Young's modulus of approximately one terapascal -- comparable to diamond. Studies of carbon nanotube strength include [Treacy 96], [Yacobson 96], and [Srivastava 97a]. Nanotech key to light sail production—the impact is efficient interplanetary transportation Globus et al 98 (A. Globus*, D. Bailey**, J. Han***, R. Jaffe****, C. Levit*****, R. Merkle******, D. Srivastava*******, * Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center. Research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the chemistry department of the University of California at Santa Cruz, ** senior scientist for the computational research department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, *** professor in geotechnical engineering at Department of Civil, Environmental, & Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas, ****no qualifications cited, ***** Creon Levit is a research scientist ¶ in the Advanced Supercomputing ¶ Division at NASA Ames Research ¶ Center, ****** computer scientist, researcher, and leading proponent of molecular manufacturing, ******* Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics¶ Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics, “NASA applications of molecular nanotechnology”, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, volume 51, pp. 145-152, 1998, http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/NASAapplications.html//VS) Interplanetary transportation¶ [Drexler 92b] calculates that lightsails made of 20 nm aluminum in tension should achieve an outward acceleration of ~14 km/s per day at Earth orbit with no payload and minimal structural overhead. For comparison, the delta V from low Earth to geosynchronous orbit is 3.8 km/s. Lightsails generate thrust by reflecting sunlight. Tension is achieved by rotating the sail. The direction of thrust is normal to the sail and away from the Sun. By directing thrust along or against the velocity vector, orbits can be lowered or raised. This form of transportation requires no reaction mass and generates thrust continuously, although the instantaneous acceleration is small so sails cannot operate in an atmosphere and must be large for even moderate payloads. Nanotech key to space transportation technology Globus et al 98 (A. Globus*, D. Bailey**, J. Han***, R. Jaffe****, C. Levit*****, R. Merkle******, D. Srivastava*******, * Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center. Research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the chemistry department of the University of California at Santa Cruz, ** senior scientist for the computational research department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, *** professor in geotechnical engineering at Department of Civil, Environmental, & Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas, ****no qualifications cited, ***** Creon Levit is a research scientist ¶ in the Advanced Supercomputing ¶ Division at NASA Ames Research ¶ Center, ****** computer scientist, researcher, and leading proponent of molecular manufacturing, ******* Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics¶ Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics, “NASA applications of molecular nanotechnology”, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, volume 51, pp. 145-152, 1998, http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/NASAapplications.html//VS) The strength of materials and computational capabilities previously discussed for space transportation should also allow much more advanced aircraft. Stronger, lighter materials can obviously make aircraft with greater lift and range. More powerful computers are invaluable in the design stage and of great utility in advanced avionics.¶ Active surfaces for aeronautic control¶ MEMS technology has been used to replace traditional large control structures on aircraft with large numbers of small MEMS controlled surfaces. This control system was used to operate a model airplane in a windtunnel. Nanotechnology should allow even finer control -- finer control than exhibited by birds, some of which can hover in a light breeze with very little wing motion. Nanotechnology should also enable extremely small aircraft.¶ Complex Shapes¶ A reasonably advanced nanotechnology should be able to make simple atomically precise materials under software control. If the control is at the atomic level, then the full range of shapes possible with a given material should be achievable. Aircraft construction requires complex shapes to accommodate aerodynamic requirements. With molecular nanotechnology, strong complex-shaped components might be manufactured by general purpose machines under software control.¶ Payload Handling¶ The aeronautics mission is responsible for launch vehicle development. Payload handling is an important function. Very efficient payload handling might be accomplished by a very advanced swarm. The sequence begins by placing each payload on a single large swarm located next to the shuttle orbiter. The swarm forms itself around the payloads and then moves them into the payload bay, arranging the payloads to optimize the center of gravity and other considerations. The swarm holds the payload in place during launch and may even damp out some launch vibrations. On orbit, satellites can be launched from the payload bay by having the swarm give them a gentle push. The swarm can then be left in orbit, perhaps at a space station, and used for orbital operations. Nanotech key to small asteroid retrieval—that solves space colonization Globus et al 98 (A. Globus*, D. Bailey**, J. Han***, R. Jaffe****, C. Levit*****, R. Merkle******, D. Srivastava*******, * Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center. Research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the chemistry department of the University of California at Santa Cruz, ** senior scientist for the computational research department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, *** professor in geotechnical engineering at Department of Civil, Environmental, & Architectural Engineering at the University of Kansas, ****no qualifications cited, ***** Creon Levit is a research scientist ¶ in the Advanced Supercomputing ¶ Division at NASA Ames Research ¶ Center, ****** computer scientist, researcher, and leading proponent of molecular manufacturing, ******* Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics¶ Professor of Pediatrics and of Biochemistry and Biophysics, “NASA applications of molecular nanotechnology”, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, volume 51, pp. 145-152, 1998, http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/NASAapplications.html//VS) In situ resource utilization is undoubtedly necessary for large scale colonization of the solar system. Asteroids are particularly promising for orbital use since many are in near Earth orbits. Moving asteroids into low Earth orbit for utilization poses a safety problem should the asteroid get out of control and enter the atmosphere. Very small asteroids can cause significant destruction. The 1908 Tunguska explosion, which [Chyba 93) calculated to be a 60 meter diameter stony asteroid, leveled 2,200 km2 of forest. [Hills 93] calculated that 4 meter diameter iron asteroids are near the threshold for ground damage. Both these calculations assumed high collision speeds. At a density of 7.7 g/cm3 [Babadzhanov 93], a 3 meter diameter asteroid should have a mass of about 110 tons. [Rabinowitz 97] estimates that there are about one billion ten meter diameter near Earth asteroids and there should be far more smaller objects.¶ For colonization applications one would ideally provide the same radiation protection available on Earth. Each square meter on Earth is protected by about 10 tons of atmosphere. Therefore, structures orbiting below the van Allen belts would like 10 tons/meter2 surface area shielding mass. This would dominate the mass requirements of any system and require one small asteroid for each 11 meter2 of colony exterior surface area. A 10,000 person cylindrical space colony such as Lewis One [Globus 91] with a diameter of almost 500 meters and a length of nearly 2000 meters would require a minimum of about 90,000 retrieval missions to provide the shielding mass. The large number of missions required suggests that a fully automated, replicating nanotechnology may be essential to build large low Earth orbit colonies from small asteroids.¶ A nanotechnology swarm along with an atomically precise lightsail is a promising small asteroid retrieval system . Lightsail propulsion insures that no mass will be lost as reaction mass. The swarm can control the lightsail by shifting mass. When a target asteroid is found, the swarm spreads out over the surface to form a bag. The interface to the sail must be active to account for the rotation of the asteroid -- which is unlikely to have an axis-of-rotation in the proper direction to apply thrust for the return to Earth orbit. The active interface is simply swarm elements that transfer between each other to allow the sail to stay in the proper orientation. Of course, there are many other possibilities for nanotechnology based retrieval vehicles. AT Nanotech Impossible Nanotech is feasible—prefer this evidence—assumes your warrants Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) Despite these barriers, nanotechnologists cite several reasons for long range hope that they can exploit the full range of their field�s possibilities. First, nothing in the laws of physics prevents the construction of nanomachines doing exactly the tasks they describe. The theoretical calculations of Feynman and Drexler, together with laboratory experiments to date, support this contention.[36] Second, nanotechnology already exists in one form � namely, the life forms of Earth�s biosphere. The molecules serving as the basis of all life are, nanotechnologists argue, nano-scale machines to construct extraordinarily complex, dynamic, macro-scale devices � that is, living organisms. Biomolecules do this job using a molecular level manufacturing process precisely analogous to nanotechnology. DNA functions as a nanoscale computer that sends instructions to nanoscopic assembly units within the cells known as ribosomes. The ribosomes then manufacture proteins, which function as tiny nanomachines building sub- units of biological cells, which in turn form whole cells, which in turn form living creatures.[37] The hope of nanotech researchers is to copy life�s molecular manufacturing process in a more refined and improved way. Just as the mere existence of birds once showed pre-Wright Brothers inventors that heavier than air flight by humans was possible, the existence of natural processes for molecular manufacturing is thought to show the eventual feasibility of human-controlled nanotechnology.[38] AT Nanotech Bad Put away your nanotech bad cards—risk assessment strategies eliminate negative effects of implementation Merta 10 (E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS) As they apply their skills to breaking through engineering barriers, nanotechnology researchers are making a conscious effort to think through the general implications of their work for human societies, not only in science and engineering but in economics, politics, and culture. Nanotechnologists like Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, and Robert Freitas do not fit the stereotypical mold of mad scientists working feverishly in their isolated laboratories, heedless to the effect their inventions might have on the larger world. Far from it. They believe their efforts could have immense social repercussions in the decades to come. They have tried to understand what those repercussions might be and to develop thoughtful positions on the uses to which nanotechnology should be put. Drexler founded his Foresight Institute, in fact, not only to promote nanotechnology but to foster discussion of its broad social impact.[39]¶ The result of such discussion has been the development of a general consensus among nanotech researchers regarding the best way to apply nanotechnology for human benefit. They have moved from the realm of pure science to that of public policy; from the question of issue of � Should � Can we? � to the we? � The essence of their consensus is this: nanotechnology should be used, with appropriate safeguards against accident and abuse , to bring deliberate, fundamental changes in aspects of human experience previously regarded as painful but also permanent facts of life. Put another way, nanotechnologists seek to abolish the worst forms of evil and suffering from human life while removing most or all natural limits on the expansion of human freedom. Nanotech risks are based off false assumptions – safety standards already in place and no support for risks Salvi 8 – Vice President of NanoBusiness Alliance, Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (Aatish, “fake fears shouldn’t stop progress,” Los Angeles Times, 2/26/2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-op-salvikimbrell26feb26,0,4037148.story)//RH Technological innovation is inevitable, and nanotechnology is the next step. A more appropriate question is what have we learned over the course of technological innovation that will ensure nanotechnological innovation is developed prudently and in a way that achieves all that we believe it will. We have learned much about the responsible development of technologies, which serves society well in commercializing nanotechnology. To date, for example, there have been no reported problems associated with any products using nanotechnology. This is because manufacturers are applying their risk mitigation and best practices consistently and responsibly. One cannot draw general conclusions about the risks of nanomaterials, let alone nanotechnology. The risks will depend on how we make specific products using nanotechnology and how we use them. George, you conclude that nanomaterials have enhanced intrinsic toxicity based on one variable — size. I have not seen a single scientific study to support that claim. In fact, studies have shown size is not the sole driver of hazard and is generally thought to be less important than surface properties. Sunscreen's use of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles has become a hot-button issue. You claim that these particles produce free radicals "causing DNA damage to human skin cells." Natural sunlight also causes DNA damage to skin cells, which is why we wear sunscreen. The World Health Organization estimates that cancers resulting from ultraviolet sun light exposure cause 60,000 deaths annually. The Environmental Working Group evaluated more than 900 sunscreens; of the top 100, 94 contained zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. It concluded: "Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are stable compounds that provide broad spectrum UVA and studies consistently show very little or zero penetration of intact skin by these compounds, indicating that real world exposure to potential nano-sized particles in these products is likely very low (Borm 2006). The sun protection benefits, in contrast, are very high." George, your statement that "there is no method currently for limiting, controlling, or even measuring exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace" is simply wrong. Engineering controls (for examples, manufacturing in enclosed environments) can greatly reduce or nearly eliminate exposure. Furthermore, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has found that wearing personal protective equipment such as face masks prevent more than 99% of nanomaterials from entering the body. NIOSH also has visited nanomaterial manufacturers to quantify UVB protection, while the available workplace nanoparticulate matter. In most of these facilities, the primary source of nanoparticulate matter is not the manufacturing process but emissions from the facilities' furnaces. In some cases, urban air contains more nanoparticles than air inside the manufacturing facility. George, you also say that nanomaterials have "unprecedented mobility" and might find their way into biological places that their larger counterparts cannot penetrate. Your observation neglects to note that certain nanoscale materials are designed to achieve this result. Cancer victims hope that nanoscale materials will travel to new biological frontiers and deliver cancer-curing relief. As for other engineered nanomaterials, your statement neglects to note that these materials are produced in controlled environments, under specific circumstances and for specific applications. Nanotechnology companies are committed to ensuring the safety of nanotech-enabled products. Such companies are taking proactive steps to ensure the safety of their workers, the public and the environment. They are partnering with NIOSH to develop data on workplace exposures; participating in the Environmental Protection Agency's Nanomaterials Stewardship Program to provide data on the existing nanomaterials in commerce; and Nanotechnology is already demonstrating that it will provide significant benefits to the public, our nation and the environment. We should not let generic fear of "nanotechnology risks" prevent us from harnessing this new frontier of innovation to create real products that provide compelling real-world benefits. practicing good product stewardship. AT: Grey Goo U.S. leadership key to development of safety measures that prevent gray goo – the impact is extinction Bailey 3 – Ronald, award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine; former Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute; former Lecturer at Harvard, MIT, and U-Virginia; named one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology [Dec, http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/01/the-smaller-the-better/2] Gray Goo The second nanotechnology risk that worries ETC Group activists is runaway self-replication. Mooney points to a scenario suggested by Eric Drexler himself in The Engines of Creation: Self-replicating nanobots get out of control and spread exponentially across the landscape, destroying everything in their path by converting it into copies of themselves. In this scenario, the biosphere is transformed by rampaging nanobots into "gray goo." But according to Nobelist Richard Smalley, "Self-replicating nanorobots like those envisioned by Eric Drexler are simply impossible to make ." Mihail Roco likewise dismisses such nanobots as "sci fi," insisting there is "common agreement among scientists that they cannot exist." Drexler replies, reasonably enough, that we know nanoassembly is possible because that's what living things do. Cells, using little machines such as ribosomes, mitochondria, and enzymes, precisely position molecules, store and access assembly instructions, and produce energy. Some have quipped that biology is nanotechnology that works. As that analogy suggests, there is a close affinity between nanotechnology and biotechnology. "The separation between nanotechnology and biotechnology is almost nonexistent," said Minoo Dastoor, a senior adviser in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Office of Aerospace Technology, at the National Nanotechnology Initiative's conference in April. For future missions, NASA needs machines that are resilient, evolvable, self-sufficient, ultra-efficient, and autonomous. "Biology seems to be able to do all these things very elegantly and efficiently," noted Dastoor. "The wet world of biology and the dry world of nanotechnology will have to live side by side and merge." The fact is that no one has yet definitively shown that Drexler's vision of molecular manufacturing using nanoassemblers is impossible. So let's suppose Smalley and Roco are wrong, and such nanobots are possible. How dangerous would self-replicating nanobots be? One of the ironies of the debate over regulation of nanotechnology is that it was nanotech boosters like Drexler who first worried about such risks. To address potential dangers such as the uncontrolled self-replication envisioned in his gray goo scenario, Drexler and others founded the Foresight Institute in 1989. Over the years, Foresight devised a set of guidelines aimed at preventing mishaps like a gray goo breakout. Among other things, the Foresight guidelines propose that nanotech replicators "must not be capable of replication in a natural, uncontrolled environment." This could be accomplished, the guidelines suggest, by designing devices so that they have an "absolute dependence on a single artificial fuel source or artificial 'vitamins' that don't exist in any natural environment." So if some replicators should get away, they would simply run down when they ran out of fuel. Another proposal is that self-replicating nanotech devices be "dependent on broadcast transmissions for replication or in some cases operation." That would put human operators in complete control of the circumstances under which nanotech devices could replicate. One other sensible proposal is that devices be programmed with termination dates. Like senescent cells in the human body, such devices would stop working and self-destruct when their time was up. "The moratorium is not a new proposal," says Foresight Institute President Christine Peterson. "Eric Drexler considered that idea a long time ago in The Engines of Creation and dismissed it as not a safe option. With a moratorium, we, the good guys, are going to be sitting on our hands. It's very risky to let the bad guys be the ones developing the technology. To do arms control on nanotechnology, you'd better have better nanotechnology than the bad guys." Software entrepreneur Ray Kurzweil is confident that nanotech defenses against uncontrolled replication will be stronger than the abilities to replicate. Citing our current ability to reduce computer viruses to nuisances, Kurzweil argues that we will be even more vigilant against a technology that could kill if uncontrolled. Smalley suggests we can learn how to control nanotech by looking at biology. The natural world is filled with self-replicating systems. In a sense, living things are "green goo." We already successfully defend ourselves against all kinds of self-replicating organisms that try to kill us, such as cholera, malaria, and typhoid. "What do we do about biological systems right now?" says Smalley. "I don't see that it's any different from biotechnology. We can make bacteria and viruses that have never existed before, and we'll handle [nanobots] the same way." Nanotech theorist Robert Freitas has written a study, "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nano-replicators With Public Policy Recommendations," which concludes that all "scenarios examined appear to permit early detection by vigilant monitoring, thus enabling rapid deployment of effective defensive instrumentalities." Frei-tas persuasively argues that dangerous self-replicating nanobots could not emerge from laboratory accidents but would have to be made on purpose using very sophisticated technologies that would take years to develop. Laundry list Science Daily 05 (Science Daily Magazine, “Nanotechnology's Miniature Answers To Developing World's Biggest Problems”, 05/12/2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512120050.htm//VS) 5. Drug delivery systems: including nano-capsules, dendrimers (tiny bush-like spheres made of branched polymers), and "buckyballs" (soccerball-shaped structures made of 60 carbon atoms) for slow, sustained drug release systems, characteristics valuable for countries without adequate drug storage capabilities and distribution networks. Nanotechnology could also potentially reduce transportation costs and even required dosages by improving shelf-life, thermo-stability and resistance to changes in humidity of existing medications;¶ 6. Food processing and storage: including improved plastic film coatings for food packaging and storage that may enable a wider and more efficient distribution of food products to remote areas in less industrialized countries; antimicrobial emulsions made with nanomaterials for the decontamination of food equipment, packaging, or food; and nanotech-based sensors to detect and identify contamination;¶ 7. Air pollution remediation: including nanotechbased innovations that destroy air pollutants with light; make catalytic converters more efficient , cheaper and better controlled; detect toxic materials and leaks; reduce fossil fuel emissions; and separate gases.¶ 8. Construction: including nano-molecular structures to make asphalt and concrete more resistant to water; materials to block ultraviolet and infrared radiation; materials for cheaper and durable housing, surfaces, coatings, glues, concrete, and heat and light exclusion; and self-cleaning for windows, mirrors and toilets.¶ 9. Health monitoring: several nano-devices are being developed to keep track of daily changes in patients' physiological variables such as the levels of glucose, of carbon dioxide, and of cholesterol, without the need for drawing blood in a hospital setting. This way, patients suffering from diabetes would know at any given time the concentration of sugar in their blood; similarly, patients with heart diseases would be able to monitor their cholesterol levels constantly.¶ 10. Disease vector and pest detection control: including nano-scale sensors for pest detection, and improved pesticides, insecticides, and insect repellents. Nano Bad 1NC Laundry List Nanotech solves multiple extinction scenarios- massive wars, economic collapse, selfreplication, arms race, and environmental destruction CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz) Determine which of the following scenarios are plausible, and if so, whether they are survivable or preventable. Subquestion A: Massive war? Preliminary answer: Highly plausible. A nano arms race appears almost inevitable, and would probably be unstable as discussed in the military capabilities study (#20). A nano-enabled war would probably be lethal to many civilians. As pointed out by Tom McCarthy, "Military planners will seek a target that is large enough to find and hit, and that cannot be easily replaced. The natural choice, given the circumstances, will be civilian populations." Both full-scale war and unconventional/terroristic war will target civilians, who will be nearly impossible to defend without major lifestyle changes. It would be easy to deploy enough antipersonnel weapons to make the earth unsurvivable by unprotected humans. Subquestion B: Economic meltdown? Preliminary answer: It's easy to imagine a nanofactory package that allows completely selfsufficient living, off grid and without money, while retaining modern first-world comfort levels. However, a modest amount of advertising would make this unattractive to most people. As discussed elsewhere, we can expect a large fraction of jobs in a wide range of areas related to manufacturing, extraction, and supply to disappear. This problem is already appearing with increased automation and efficiency, but could rapidly get worse. The factors that lead to economic meltdown also provide increased self-sufficiency, so it ought to be survivable in the absence of oppressive policy (maintaining artificial scarcity while removing sources of income). Secondary effects from social disruption may be problematic but ought to be survivable. Attempts to subsidize dead-end jobs will probably be harmful in the long run. Some amount of economic disruption should be expected. Social engineering to reduce the stigma of unemployment (why should unearned income be good for the rich and bad for the poor?) and policy to allow displaced workers to share in the benefits of the new technology will be helpful. Subquestion C: Runaway self-replication? Preliminary answer: Also known as the 'gray goo' scenario, this is perhaps the earliest and most famous concern related to molecular manufacturing. Contrary to early statements by Drexler, this could not happen accidentally; manufacturing systems, even early lab versions, will not remotely have the capability to become selfcontained free-range self-replicators. However, the deliberate combination of a very small nanofactory, a very small chemical plant to convert organic chemicals into feedstock, and some robotics, could be a substantial nuisance or even threat. Eventually, the technology will develop to the point where it will be easy to make a device that requires active cleanup to avoid widespread environmental damage. The prevalence of computer viruses implies that creating such devices will be attractive to certain personality types, and eventually within their capability. So, although runaway selfreplication is not a first-rank concern, eventually it will need to be studied, and some combination of prevention and cleanup capability probably will have to be implemented. In theory, this could pose an existential threat. Subquestion D: Dangerous software? Preliminary answer: An arms race (either military or corporate—in fact, conducted by any organization) could involve the development of increasingly capable AIs for the purpose of manipulating or coercing people. Note that this does not require full general intelligence. A variety of manipulative techniques (on either human psychology or other complex systems) can be imagined using only specialized data-processing. Some theorists believe that a self-improving AI could pose an existential threat: almost any command would cause unexpected and massively disruptive side effects. We do not know whether this is plausible. But nanotech development will certainly be an enabling technology for powerful AI, though we may face this problem even before nanotech is developed. Robert Freitas cites some of these concerns going back decades in Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines. Already, enough infrastructure is computercontrolled to make a cyberspace attack potentially very destructive. As more products become computer-integrated, a software attack could shut down, damage, or subvert increasingly crucial functions. The variety of possible impacts on human psychology, computer-integrated infrastructure, and other systems (e.g. the effect of computer trading on the stock market) implies that this whole area should be extensively and creatively studied. Subquestion E: Moral or social meltdown? Preliminary answer: The availability of new products and lifestyles may cause disruption in social fabric, especially in conservative societies that may actively resist change. This may inspire a backlash, possibly including force. It is likely to destroy some cultures. Broader effects are unknown. Subquestion F: Environmental devastation by overproduction? Preliminary answer: It would be easy to build enough nano-litter to cause serious pollution problems. Small nano-built devices in particular will be difficult to collect after use. It will also be easy to consume enough energy to change microclimate and even global climate. Overpopulation is probably not a concern, even in the event of extreme life/health extension. The more people use high technology, the fewer children they seem to have. Provisional conclusion: Several plausible disaster scenarios appear to pose existential threats to the human race . Molecular Nanotech will lead to extinction – regulation is ineffective and defense mechanisms are hard to develop Bostrum 2k2 Nick Professor – Department of Philosophy – Yale, “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards” http://research.lifeboat.com/risks.htm In a mature form, molecular nanotechnology will enable the construction of bacterium-scale selfreplicating mechanical robots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter [22-25]. Such replicators could eat up the biosphere or destroy it by other means such as by poisoning it, burning it, or blocking out sunlight. A person of malicious intent in possession of this technology might cause the extinction of intelligent life on Earth by releasing such nanobots into the environment.[9] The technology to produce a destructive nanobot seems considerably easier to develop than the technology to create an effective defense against such an attack (a global nanotech immune system, an “active shield” [23]). It is therefore likely that there will be a period of vulnerability during which this technology must be prevented from coming into the wrong hands. Yet the technology could prove hard to regulate, since it doesn’t require rare radioactive isotopes or large, easily identifiable manufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear weapons [23]. Health/Enviro Nanotech hurts the environment- long term damage to natural cycles, unanswered negative impacts Kulinowski and Colvin 4 (Kristen M., Senior Faculty Fellow in Chemistry at Rice University, Vicki L., Kenneth S. Pitzer-Schlumberger Professor of Chemistry at Rice University, 4/8/04, “Environmental Implications of Engineered Nanomaterials”, http://www.nanolabweb.com/index.cfm/action/main.default.viewArticle/articleID/11 /CFID/627091/CFTOKEN/33862493/index.html // nz) The high level of enthusiasm for this burgeoning industry is tempered somewhat by a note of caution about its broader implications, particularly in the area of environmental impact. As nanotechnology development continues apace, it is prudent to consider the long-term environmental impacts of products containing nanomaterials during their entire lifecycle, from the point of manufacture to their eventual disposal. Yet little is known at present about how engineered nanomaterials will affect either natural systems such as soil or a river, or living systems such as people and wildlife. This lack of information leaves nanotechnology vulnerable to its critics, whose questions about potential negative impacts are left unanswered by the technical community. Many of these critics adhere strictly to the “precautionary principle,” which states that, for any activity that poses a possible threat to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if the threat is not fully established scientifically. This principle’s application to nanotechnology has resulted in calls by several groups for a moratorium on nanoparticle re-search until questions about its impacts are addressed and protocols for safe handling are developed.1 This uncertainty has also attracted the attention of policymakers and the media in the US and abroad.2 The UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering responded by launching a thorough study into whether nanotechnology will raise new health, safety, societal or environmental concerns.3 The US nanotech legislation calls for integration of research on societal, ethical, legal and environmental implications of nanotechnology into technical R&D and mandates a study on the “responsible development of nanotechnology,” including “self-replicating nanoscale machines or devices” and “the release of such machines in natural environments.”4 Whether the concerns are about near-term issues such as environmental contamination or far-term ones such as the creation of self-replicating nanomachines, public reaction to these fears could pressure government officials to implement new nanotechnology-specific regulations or even result in a focused campaign against products containing nanomaterials. Either outcome would alter the trajectory of nanotechnology development, which proceeds largely unimpeded at present. Nanotech is bad for health, environmental, privacy, security reasons The Nanoethics Group 8 (The Nanoethics Group, 2008, “The Bad,” http://ethics.calpoly.edu/nanoethics/bad.html,) Health: Nanoparticles have been shown to be absorbed in the livers of research animals and even cause brain damage in fish exposed to them after just 48 hours. If they can be taken up by cells, then they can enter our food chain through bacteria and pose a health threat like mercury in fish, pesticides in vegetables or hormones in meat. The increasingly-popular carbon nanotube (20x stronger and lighter than steel) looks very much like an asbestos fiber – what happens if they get released into the air? Being carbon-based, they wouldn’t set off the usual alarms in our bodies, making them difficult to detect.¶ Environmental: If nanomaterials really are as strong as diamonds, how decomposable or persistent are they? Will they litter our environment further or present another disposal problem like nuclear waste or space litter? In the distant future, will self-replicating nanobots – necessary to create the trillions of nanoassemblers needed to build any kind of product – run amok, spreading as quickly as a virus, in the infamous “gray goo” scenario?¶ Privacy: As products shrink in size, eavesdropping devices too can become invisible to the naked eye and more mobile, making it easier to invade our privacy. Small enough to plant into our bodies, mind-controlling nanodevices may be able to affect our thoughts by manipulating brain-processes.¶ Terrorism: Capabilities of terrorists go hand in hand with military advances, so as weapons become more powerful and portable, these devices can also be turned against us. Nanotech may create new, unimaginable forms of torture – disassembling a person at the molecular level or worse. Radical groups could let loose nanodevices targeting to kill anyone with a certain skin color or even a specific person. Weapons Nanotech is bad – multiple reasons Chen 2 (Andrew, Board Member at InterPlay, Founder of Kavalry Inc., IT and web development professional, March 2002, “The Ethics of Nanotechnology,” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/chen/nanotechnology.html) The flip side to these benefits is the possibility of assemblers and disassemblers being used to create weapons, be used as weapons themselves, or for them to run wild and wreak havoc. Other, less invasive, but equally perilous uses of nanotechnology would be in electronic surveillance.¶ Weapons¶ Miniature Weapons and Explosives¶ Disassemblers for Military Use¶ Rampant Nanomachines¶ The Gray Goo Scenario¶ Self Replicating Nanomachines¶ Surveillance¶ Monitoring¶ Tracking¶ Weapons are an obvious negative use of nanotechnology. Simply extending today's weapon capabilities by miniaturizing guns, explosives, and electronic components of missiles would be deadly enough. However, with nanotechnology, armies could also develop disassemblers to attack physical structures or even biological organism at the molecular level. A similar hazard would be if general purpose disassemblers got loose in the environment and started disassembling every molecule they encountered. This is known as "The Gray Goo Scenario." Furthermore, if nanomachines were created to be self replicating and there were a problem with their limiting mechanism, they would multiply endlessly like viruses. Even without considering the extreme disaster scenarios of nanotechnology, we can find plenty of potentially harmful uses for it. It could be used to erode our freedom and privacy; people could use molecular sized microphones, cameras, and homing beacons to monitor and track others. Wars Nanotech creates a massive war that makes the earth unsurvivable- lethal to civilians, terroristic conflict, and arms race CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz) Subquestion A: Massive war?¶ Preliminary answer: Highly plausible. A nano arms race appears almost inevitable, and would probably be unstable as discussed in the military capabilities study (#20).¶ A nano-enabled war would probably be lethal to many civilians. As pointed out by Tom McCarthy, "Military planners will seek a target that is large enough to find and hit, and that cannot be easily replaced. The natural choice, given the circumstances, will be civilian populations." Both full-scale war and unconventional/terroristic war will target civilians, who will be nearly impossible to defend without major lifestyle changes. It would be easy to deploy enough antipersonnel weapons to make the earth unsurvivable by unprotected humans. Economy Nanotech starts an economic collapse- increased self-sufficiency, wide range of jobs will disappear CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz) Subquestion B: Economic meltdown?¶ Preliminary answer: It's easy to imagine a nanofactory package that allows completely self-sufficient living, off grid and without money, while retaining modern first-world comfort levels. However, a modest amount of advertising would make this unattractive to most people.¶ As discussed elsewhere, we can expect a large fraction of jobs in a wide range of areas related to manufacturing, extraction, and supply to disappear. This problem is already appearing with increased automation and efficiency, but could rapidly get worse.¶ The factors that lead to economic meltdown also provide increased self-sufficiency, so it ought to be survivable in the absence of oppressive policy (maintaining artificial scarcity while removing sources of income). Secondary effects from social disruption may be problematic but ought to be survivable.¶ Attempts to subsidize dead-end jobs will probably be harmful in the long run. Some amount of economic disruption should be expected. Social engineering to reduce the stigma of unemployment (why should unearned income be good for the rich and bad for the poor?) and policy to allow displaced workers to share in the benefits of the new technology will be helpful. Nanotechnology drastically decreases the amount of jobs – hurts the world economy Treder 5 (Mike Treder, Executive Director of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology professional writer, speaker, and activist with a background in technology and communications company management, 2005, “War, Interdependence, Nanotechnology,” http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederwar002.asp) We also must consider the potential negative impacts of advanced nanotechnology on our current socio-economic structure.¶ Low-cost local manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to monetary upheaval, as major economic sectors contract or even collapse. For example, the global steel industry is worth over $700 billion. What will happen to the millions of jobs associated with that industry—and to the capital supporting it—when materials many times stronger than steel can be produced quickly and cheaply wherever (and whenever) they are needed?¶ Productive nanosystems could make storable solar power a realistic and preferable alternative to traditional energy sources. Around the world, individual energy consumers pay over $600 billion a year for utility bills and fuel supplies. Commercial and industrial uses drive the figures higher still. When much of this spending can be permanently replaced with off-grid solar energy, many more jobs will be displaced.¶ The worldwide semiconductor industry produces annual billings of over $150 billion. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the industry employs a domestic workforce of nearly 300,000 people. Additionally, U.S. retail distribution of electronics products amounts to almost $300 billion annually. All of these areas will be impacted significantly if customized electronics products can be produced at home for about a dollar a pound, the likely cost of raw materials. If any individual can make products containing computing power a million times greater than today’s PCs, where will those jobs go? Other nations will be affected as well. For example, the Chinese government may welcome the advent of general-purpose molecular manufacturing for several reasons, including its potential to radically reduce poverty and reduce catastrophic environmental problems. But at the same time, China relies on foreign direct investment (FDI) of over $40 billion annually for much of its current economic strength. When money to purchase Chinese manufactured goods stops flowing in, economic turmoil could spark violent struggles.¶ Overall, it’s not a pretty picture. Without wise planning, molecular manufacturing is likely to produce severe economic disruption and social disorder, as well as a perilously unstable new arms race that could lead to devastating acts of war. Self-Replication Nanotech allows rapid self-replication- major threat to the environment and poses as an existential threat CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz) Subquestion C: Runaway self-replication?¶ Preliminary answer: Also known as the 'gray goo' scenario, this is perhaps the earliest and most famous concern related to molecular manufacturing. Contrary to early statements by Drexler, this could not happen accidentally; manufacturing systems, even early lab versions, will not remotely have the capability to become self-contained free-range selfreplicators. However, the deliberate combination of a very small nanofactory, a very small chemical plant to convert organic chemicals into feedstock, and some robotics, could be a substantial nuisance or even threat. Eventually, the technology will develop to the point where it will be easy to make a device that requires active cleanup to avoid widespread environmental damage. The prevalence of computer viruses implies that creating such devices will be attractive to certain personality types, and eventually within their capability.¶ So, although runaway self-replication is not a first-rank concern, eventually it will need to be studied, and some combination of prevention and cleanup capability probably will have to be implemented. In theory, this could pose an existential threat. AI Nanotech creates dangerous AI’s- capable of widespread threats and risks extinction CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz) Subquestion D: Dangerous software?¶ Preliminary answer: An arms race (either military or corporate—in fact, conducted by any organization) could involve the development of increasingly capable AIs for the purpose of manipulating or coercing people. Note that this does not require full general intelligence. A variety of manipulative techniques (on either human psychology or other complex systems) can be imagined using only specialized data-processing.¶ Some theorists believe that a self-improving AI could pose an existential threat: almost any command would cause unexpected and massively disruptive side effects. We do not know whether this is plausible. But nanotech development will certainly be an enabling technology for powerful AI, though we may face this problem even before nanotech is developed. Robert Freitas cites some of these concerns going back decades in Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines. Already, enough infrastructure is computercontrolled to make a cyberspace attack potentially very destructive. As more products become computer-integrated, a software attack could shut down, damage, or subvert increasingly crucial functions.¶ The variety of possible impacts on human psychology, computer-integrated infrastructure, and other systems (e.g. the effect of computer trading on the stock market) implies that this whole area should be extensively and creatively studied. AT- Environment Nanotech can’t solve the hydrogen economy- long timeframe, false models, and not cost competitive Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) It is clear that the largest barrier to the wide scale adoption of the hydrogen economy is the discovery of a cheap and efficient method of storage. Virtually all criticisms are aimed either directly or indirectly at this area of the technology. Both generation of hydrogen via electrolysis and use of hydrogen in a fuel cell are relatively efficient, but large energy losses are experienced in all current practical methods of storage. It is likely that if the breakthrough is made it will be from material sciences and will involve nanotechnology. The ultimate goal will be a device that can store large quantities of hydrogen reversibly at near ambient conditions, however this appears to be some distance away . There will need to be a significant shift in the UK’s infrastructure to accommodate a new method of energy storage and delivery. There are several different scenarios for this. In the short term hydrogen generation will occur via steam reformation and be delivered to specialist suppliers through high pressure tankers on road vehicles. In the mid to long term there are likely to be three different methods for the transportation of hydrogen for use in vehicles (Table 6). All potential methods of delivery are likely to involve significant costs and the most effective method will depend on the scale of adoption. Therefore the final decision on the delivery of hydrogen to forecourts is likely to be deferred until the success (or potential failure) of hydrogen powered transport is proved. Other than the technological barriers of hydrogen fuelled transport the overall costs of the ‘engine’ compared to a conventional internal combustion engine are expected to be significantly higher. The majority of hydrogen powered vehicles are leased from car manufacturers and are not a true indicator of the cost of production models . It is likely that, certainly in the short to medium term, hydrogen powered vehicles will not be cost competitive with the equivalent fossil fuel powered alternatives, either in terms of initial capital outlay or cost of fuel. Therefore wide scale adoption of this technology will probably require fiscal incentives such as congestion charge reductions. Fuel additives create health risks- dangerous nanoparticles Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) Fuel additives have an obvious potential risk from the exposure to air‐ dispersed nanoparticles of ceria. These risks need to be offset against the reduction in carbon particulate (which has a better known public health risk) that results from the use of the fuel additives. Using data from trials of Oxonica materials, the potential for carbon particulate reduction is around 1300 tonnes per year, compared to an introduction into the atmosphere of around 100 tonnes of cerium oxide nanoparticles. A BASF eco‐efficiency analysis carried out on these materials concluded that even in a worst case scenario additised diesel outperforms unadditised fuel in Toxicity Potential. The latter, due to the significantly higher fuel consumption, results in greater particulate emissions (soot) as well as NMVOC (non‐methane volatile organic solvents) and carbon monoxide. Risks from lubricant additives are generally contained within the engine and are likely to remain entrained in the lubricating oil. The ease and speed of introduction of new types of turbine components will be governed by industry specifications and approvals. Solar cells cost too much- major risks in tech Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) The major issue in adoption of all photovoltaics is in the cost. This is obviously due in part due to the cost of production and the expense of raw materials, but in addition, the UK taxation regime mitigates against the general public purchasing and installing of microgeneration systems such as rooftop solar cells, which are ultimately likely to make up the vast majority of installed photovoltaic capacity in the UK. For example, although the end user wishing to purchase photovoltaics cannot reclaim VAT on the purchase price, large scale energy generators are able to do so. The leveling of the tax playing field by offering similar incentives to the general public will encourage the installation of distributed renewable energy technologies. Tax incentives can have a measurable positive effect on the installed photovoltaic capacity; for example, tax incentives in Germany have led to 250,000 installations, whilst there are only 2,500 installations in the UK.a Since the integration of nanotechnology with photovoltaic technologies is new and largely unproven there is a requirement for further work on fundamental understanding and commercialisation in the medium and long term. The development of nanotechnology in renewable energy generation is uncertain and at the forefront of current research. There is therefore significant risk involved in any investments. Although the private sector could be left to develop the technology, the support of large scale projects such as clean rooms will help accelerate development. A Class 10 Clean room could, for example, cost as much as $1bn to build and such investment is unlikely for a speculative technology such as nanoparticle photovoltaics. Most current commercial, or close to commercialisation, nanoparticulate photovoltaics are less efficient than conventional silicon cells. This is possibly due to degradation of the nanomaterial and may be resolved by improving the encapsulation processes. AT: Batteries Nanotech can’t solve batteries- expensive, can’t solve large scale which is necessary to solve Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz) It is clear that without the development of rapid charge, high capacity batteries the use of electric vehicles will be limited to niche applications or for short defined journeys. Nanotechnology appears to be a front runner in allowing the battery with the highest charge density, Li‐ion, to charge and discharge rapidly. Supercapacitors may provide a solution to improve power output during acceleration and to utilise fully regenerative breaking. The incorporation of nanotechnology into batteries is occurring on the research scale. However, there are problems in developing the process for an industrial scale. Ultimately, the cost of hybrid or electric cars should be comparable to a conventional internal combustion engine car. This will partly be achieved through mass production. A key challenge will be the ability to generate nanomaterials on the scale required for mass production. Most methods for manufacturing nanoparticles are expensive, energy intensive and relatively low volume . The largest volume nanoparticulate production facilities at present use plasma technology to produce multi‐tonne volumes. Electric vehicles cost approximately one penny per mile. They are of simpler technical specification and therefore are claimed to be more reliable. The current road tax and congestion charge schemes provide favourable benefits for zero emission cars. The cost of running an electric car, therefore, is considerably less than a conventional car. However the initial purchase price of these vehicles is likely to be higher due to the low volume production runs, the experimental nature of the vehicles and the expensive and rare elements used in the battery construction. The recent fall in oil prices has pushed down the price of petrol. In the USA, the high prices of fuel drove demand for hybrid vehicles. With the recent fall in fuel prices the sale of hybrid vehicles has also fallen. Higher overall petrol prices would force Americans to considered hybrid vehicles. In Europe (and in particular the UK) the very high petrol prices are seen as a market pull. During our interviews, there was a feeling that support from both industry and government was missing or inadequate for medium to long term high technology projects, such as developing new battery technology. Perceptions were that attitudes towards long term high technology investments (in both the public and private sector) in the Far East and the USA were more forthcoming than in Europe. This problem is endemic throughout UK science and innovation and recommendations are stated elsewhere. Also, funding where there are requirements for consortia is difficult to initiate in the UK due to the lack of a UK based automotive manufacturing base. The relatively low interest from EU car and battery manufacturers is forcing innovative nanotechnology companies to look in the USA and Asia for contracts. The physical distance inhibits growth in development in the UK. Environment Nanotech causes unpredictable health and environmental risks and displaces industries and jobs – more risk assessment is needed before action is taken Kimbrell 8 – staff attorney for the International Center for Technology Assessment (George, “understanding the risks before marketing nanotech,” Los Angeles Times, 2/25/2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-op-salvi kimbrell25feb25,0,3578394.story)//RH Because of these new properties, nanotechnology has been touted by its proponents as nothing less than the "next industrial revolution" — transforming and constructing a wide range of new materials, devices, technological systems in a wide number of fields. However, just as the size and chemical characteristics of engineered nanoparticles can give them exciting properties, those same new properties — tiny size, vastly increased surface area-to-volume ratio, high reactivity — can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Swiss insurance giant Swiss Re noted in 2004, "Never before have the risks and opportunities of a new technology been as closely linked as they are in nanotechnology. It is precisely those characteristics which make nanoparticles so valuable that give rise to concern regarding hazards to human beings and the environment alike." For example, studies have compared the carbon nanotubes Aatish mentions with asbestos based on their shape and effect on the lungs when inhaled. We will discuss these potential risks in the coming days. There is no shortage of money being spent promoting the technology's applications. Investments in federally-funded nanotechnology activities coordinated through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) totaled approximately $1.4 billion in 2007. Unfortunately, NNI's fiscal year 2007 budget earmarked less than 4% for environmental health and safety research. Even less is being spent studying broader socioeconomic and ethical concerns, such as the displacement of whole industries and their workers that Aatish notes nano-scale manufacturing may portend. Nanotechnology is a commercial reality. Lux Research's 2006 Nanotechnology Report noted that more than $32 billion in products incorporating nanotechnology were sold that year. Lux predicts that by 2014, $2.6 trillion in manufactured products will be nano products, which amounts to 15% of total global manufacturing. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies' inventory of nano-material consumer products lists more than 580 products currently on market shelves, including paints, coatings, sunscreens, medical bandages, sporting goods, personal-care products, cosmetics, clothing, dietary supplements, food packaging Putting these nano products into the market without assessing the potential risks is like trying to get an Apollo capsule to the moon without knowing whether the rocket carrying it will explode on the way. It is past time for government to do more research on the basic health and safety aspects of nanotechnologies as well as deficiencies in existing health and environmental protection laws. It should spend less on promotional activities best carried out by business. We are so caught up in the "race" Aatish describes that we have failed to ask what the potential risks are or consider what type of world are we racing toward. and light-emitting diodes used in computers, cellphones and digital cameras. Pollution Nanomaterials are toxic and have a laundry list of risks Kimbrell 8 – staff attorney for the International Center for Technology Assessment (George, “An Unprecedented Ability to Harm,” Los Angeles Times, 2/26/2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-op-salvi-kimbrell26feb26,0,4037148.story)//RH there is much more that we do not know about nanomaterials and their risks than what we do know. Despite rapid nanomaterial commercialization, many potential risks remain dangerously untested due to the failure to prioritize and fund risk research. That said, there are also numerous foreseeable risks that arise from the fundamentally different nature and properties of nanomaterials. While not all nanomaterials will be found to be toxic or dangerous, they are also not uniformly safe, and crucially, their safety cannot be assumed from the testing of their bulk material counterparts. Just as the size and physics of nanomaterials give them unusual strength and reactivity properties, those properties also give them unpredicted risks such as increased toxicity and extreme mobility. And the limited existing risk studies continue to raise red flags, a few of which I will mention below. Due to their tiny size, nanomaterials have unprecedented mobility for a manufactured material and can cross biological membranes, cells, tissues and organs more easily than larger particles. When inhaled, they can go from the lungs into the blood system. Once in the bloodstream, nanomaterials can circulate throughout the body and can lodge in organs and tissues such as the brain, liver, heart, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and nervous system. The jury is still out on the ease of their skin penetration. The increased surface area of nanoparticles creates increased reactivity and enhanced intrinsic toxicity. Once inside cells, they may interfere with normal cellular function, cause oxidative damage and even cell death. First, The public is exposed to manufactured nanomaterials in consumer products, like the many personal care, cosmetics and sunscreen products containing nanomaterials. These are "free" nanoparticles in a cream or gel that are used daily and placed directly on the skin. Studies have shown nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide used in many nano-sunscreens have to be photoactive, producing free radicals and causing DNA damage to human skin cells. Carbon fullerenes are being used in some face and anti-aging creams even though they are toxic to There is no method currently for limiting, controlling or even measuring exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace. Dangers to workers could come from inhalation (the new asbestos?), access through the skin and digestive system (and the creation of free radicals that cause cell damage), or through the exposure to a new nanotech-created substance to which the body has no natural immunity or that triggers autoimmune disorders. Carbon nanotubes in particular have been likened to asbestos fibers and found to cause lung inflammation. Manufactured nanomaterials are entering the natural environment throughout their lifecycle: manufacturing, transportation, use and disposal. Once loose in nature, these nanomaterials represent a new class of manufactured non-biodegradable pollutants. Nanomaterials' unique chemical and physical characteristics create various foreseeable environmental risks, including potentially toxic interactions or compounds, the absorption and/or transportation of pollutants, durability or bioaccumulation, and unprecedented mobility in ecosystems for a manufactured material. Studies have found carbon fullerenes to cause brain damage to fish and be toxic to other aquatic life. Nano-silver is currently being infused human liver cells at low levels. into a wide range of goods, including cleaning products and food packaging for its highly efficient antimicrobial properties. Yet the same properties that make these nanoparticles attractive to manufacturers are highly destructive to microorganisms once released into ecosystems. Latin America Key U.S. Key Direct Resources Latin America lacks nanotech initiatives now—the plan is key to redirect Mexican resources via government nanotech projects Foladori et al 07- Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS It is worth mentioning that neither Brazil, nor Argentina, nor México have created¶ programs to examine the possible social, economic, environmental, political¶ and ethical impacts of the use of nanotechnology.3 In contrast, most of the industrialized¶ countries have solid agendas to promote the discussion of these issues.¶ The absence of such schemes in Latin America indicates a lack of public awareness¶ about the use of this technology and shows the profound hope that the governments¶ in the region have in nanotechnology to conquer international markets,¶ even though its use would entail risks and impacts not fully understood.¶ The Mexican case is somewhat different from the Argentinean and Brazilian¶ cases. There is no specific plan or national program linked to nanotechnology in¶ México, even though nanotechnology is considered a strategic sector for development,¶ as identified in 2002 in the Programa Especial de Ciencia y Tecnología¶ 2001-2006 (Special Program on Science and Technology 2001-2006). There have¶ been efforts from a group of scientists to promote such a plan (IPICyT, 2002). The¶ United States-México Foundation for Science (“FUMEC”) has shown support as¶ well. In addition, nanotechnology research and development in México has been¶ conducted by individuals and regulated through the bilateral and multilateral agreements¶ that some research centers have signed. However, this reflects a path¶ where specific interests regulate the development of nanotechnology. Mexico Key – No National Plan Nationalized nanotech initiatives overcome financing hurdles Foladori et al 07- Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS The Programa Especial points out¶ the pressing need for creating a national plan on nanotechnology development and¶ the necessity to encourage the formation of networks for scientific exchange in the¶ area (CONACYT, 2002). Moreover, the National Development Plan 2001-2006¶ identifies nanotechnology research as an important subfield inside the energy sector,¶ above all others within the framework of the Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo¶ (“IMP”) (Mexican Institute of Petroleum). The conditions and provisions to create¶ and implement a National Initiative for Nanotechnology Development were present,¶ but the lack of funding and the absence of an executive plan created barriers¶ to fully develop a national initiative for nanotechnology. In this regard, the budget¶ for Science and Technology (“S&T”) has dramatically decreased in the last¶ five years. 2AC – Mexico Key - Regulations Mexico’s key—geographical advantage and lack of regulations Foladori et al 07- Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS In this context, nanotechnology appears¶ to be a necessity more than an option. But competitiveness is not only the¶ be competitive, it is necessary that someone¶ else lose. This is the law of the market. The race between several regions and/or¶ states in México to build scientific-industrial parks could increase the competition¶ between them, thus increasing the possibility of failure and encouraging environmental¶ degradation. In the absence of a national plan, could this increase intra-national¶ competition and, as a consequence, weaken the international position of¶ México?¶ Why would transnational enterprises like to set up shop in México? Geography¶ can be an answer, but not necessarily the most important one. Perhaps it has something¶ to do with the paucity of regulations and lax rules . In the U.S., the potential¶ risks to health and the threats to the environment derived from nanoparticles¶ are part of the political agenda. As a consequence, the costs for¶ nanotechnology R&D might increase. It is likely that some enterprises will result of individualized efforts. To seek¶ to avoid these costs by migrating to countries where these rules are nonexistent. Resource Shift Latin America key—plan is key to shift the focus from research to production Kay et al 09-School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; ShapiraManchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester (Luciano, Philip, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America”, 02/11/2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/#__ffn_sectitle//VS) Several Latin American countries have set the development of nanotechnology as an objective to increase their competitiveness (Foladori 2006). However, scientific research has been concentrated primarily in three countries, Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, which contributed about 85% of all nanotechnology publications from this continent during the period 1990–2006 (Table 2).4 In these countries, nanotechnology research activity in the field started in the early 1990s, but publication output did not begin to noticeably increase until the middle of that decade (Fig. the aggregate level, Latin America’s share of global nanotechnology publications grew in successive years between 1994 and 2002, rising to 3.6% of the world’s nanotechnology publication output in the latter year. Since 2002, although the actual number of publications has continued to increase, the continent’s relative share of world output has declined. In 2005, 1)¶ At Latin America contributed 3% of the world’s nanotechnology publications (Latin America’s share of world population was 8.6% in that year).5 In general terms, this relative decline reflects greater increases in research activity and publication in other leading countries. For example, between 2002 and 2005, annual nanotechnology publication rates increased by 57% for the US and 170% in China compared with 33% for Latin America. By country, Brazil and M exico have continued to expand absolute numbers of publications, while in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay there has been a relative standstill in publication growth in recent years (Fig. 1).6 Government Key – Regs and R&D Government involvement solves R&D efforts—that makes nanotech effective Kay et al 09 School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Shapira- Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester (Luciano, Philip, “Developing nanotechnology in Latin America”, 02/11/2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988220/#__ffn_sectitle//VS) Moreover, our data show relatively low government involvement in nanotechnology research publication, except for Argentina where there are several governmental labs that are actively involved in research. However, the role of government clearly may extend beyond this. Nanotechnology policies may give the role of broker to government agencies to enable knowledge transfer, sharing, and exchange between industry and academia . These agencies may also help in coordinating national R&D efforts and promote broader participation and citizen input on the use of nanotechnology applications (Chiancone et al. 2007; Invernizzi 2007). Furthermore, they can design regulation schemes to ensure the development of nanotechnology according to social and environmental standards (Maynard 2006). Nat. Plan Key – U.S. Model National project key to economic competitiveness—US interaction key Foladori et al 07 Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS The path that nanotechnologies have followed in the case of Mexico, the second big player in the region, is somewhat different (Foladori & Zayago, 2008).¶ The main difference is that there is no national plan or policy to direct the development of the nanosciences and nanotechnology . Paradoxically, the technology¶ has been considered as one of vital importance, even strategic, as identified in¶ 2002 in the Special Program on Science and Technology 2001-2006 within the¶ National Plan of Development (Foladori & Zayago, 2007). ¶ Despite the absence of an integral national policy of nanotechnology and combined with the consistent reduction in the budget destined to S&T, estimated at¶ 0.4% of the GDP in 2005, several research groups were created. According to different estimates, there are currently between 300 and 500 scientists working in the¶ area of nanotechnology, most of which are linked via bilateral or multilateral agreements and by the creation of national and international research networks.¶ These networks incorporate the most important Mexican universities and research ¶ centers, creating bonds with the European Union, with some other Latin American countries, but mainly with the US, whose compelling influence is growing¶ every year. The collaboration between Mexico and the US regarding nanotechnology development has been done by essentially three mechanisms: at the scientific-academic level (between research centers and universities); in correspondence¶ with political and business interests (by establishing high technology parks within¶ the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); and¶ through scientific and military accords. ¶ As the Brazilian case, the main justification to support nanotechnology development in Mexico is an increase in competitiveness and, at the same time, there¶ is no concern about the social, economical, political and ethical implications, as¶ well as the potential risks, of using nano technologies. Mexico Key – Nat. Plan Key Mexico’s key—nanotech infrastructure is ready—national plan key to effectiveness Foladori et al 07 Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS What are, then, the development paths followed by nanotechnologies in Latin¶ America that we can observe after this research? We can essentially group them¶ around three trends. The first trend is a clear concentration of the development of¶ nanotechnology in basically three countries: Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. These¶ countries historically experienced in the region both a more advanced process of¶ industrialization and a higher development of infrastructure dedicated to support¶ public education and research . This concentration can, however, result in an increase in the south-south gap aggregated to the already impressive north-south gap¶ regarding nanotechnology development. Nonetheless, this tendency can be overcome by the development of agreements and joint programs among the countries¶ in the region with the purpose of endorsing the development of nanotechnologies.¶ Some programs are stronger, at least at the moment, such as those between Brazil¶ and Argentina, with some integration of Uruguay. Widening the scope and reach¶ of these agreements would make it possible to make better use of the research infrastructure and human resources in the region. Furthermore, it would be possible¶ to elucidate a better agenda with a focus on the economic and social needs. ¶ Only two countries, Brazil and Argentina, have created national nanotechnology programs. However, the single aim of those programs is to use nanotechnologies as a tool to increase competitiveness. This is a second trend. The idea is to¶ link knowledge to industry with the purpose of stimulating the productive sector,¶ which has been historically characterized in Latin America by its little-to-no initiative toward innovation. The creation of national programs not only guarantees¶ resources and stresses the importance of nanotechnology within the S&T national¶ agenda, but also contributes to the establishment of national goals and delineates¶ feasible research areas. For that reason, we see as essential the establishment of¶ National Nanotechnology Programs to orient nanotechnology development in Latin America towards explicit goals of social development. Mexico Key – National Agenda Mexico key—no national nanotech agenda now Foladori et al 07 Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas; Invernizzi-Senior associate at the Wilson Center (Guillermo, Noela, “Nanotechnologies in¶ Latin America”, 12/2007, http://www.academia.edu/370692/Nanotechnologies_in_Latin_America)//VS Up until late 2007, there was no federal program to finance, organize or regulate na-no technology, despite the efforts of some researchers from a variety of institutions to get it under way (Several Authors, 2002; IPICYT,2005).Most research groups have bilateral agreements with groups in the United Sta-tes or Europe, and financing comes from various Mexican and overseas programs.The main agreement is probably the partnership established in 2004 between Uni-versity of Texas-Austin, International Center for Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials and several centers from the National Council of Science and Techno-logy (“CONACYT”) and other universities (Fierro, 2004). According to a study(Lieffering, 2004), the main fields of research in Mexico are the following: inte-grated circuits, microelectromechanical systems (“MEMS”), semiconductors, sen-sors and development of new materials. In December 2005, the Committee forScience and Technology of the Senate of the Republic issued a report in favor of the preparation of a National Emergency Program for investment in research and teaching of nanotechnology (Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología, 2005), neverthe-less up to the end of 2007 internal differences did not make this possible. Modeling Mexico Key Model Mexico key—it’s the framework for Latin American nanotech—research proves it’s critical Lau 08 Researcher of the Latin American Nanotechnology & Society Network ¶ (ReLANS); PhD. ¶ Candidate in Development Studies at the Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas (Edgar Zayago, “Nanotechnology may be more useful for Mexican society”, 2008, http://www.utwente.nl/mesaplus/nanoforumeula/interviews_visiting_researcher/edg arlau.pdf//VS) The research plan for the visit emerged from the need to fill an important gap within the area ¶ of nanotechnology: its impact on developing societies. The plan carried out at the University ¶ of Twente institute represented an important opportunity to add value to the research area ¶ within the framework not only of Mexico but the entire Latin American continent. ¶ The results allowed us (ReLANS’ members) to contribute in ensuring that the pursuit of ¶ nanotechnology development in Mexico is approached utilizing a responsible process with a ¶ comprehensive knowledge of the current situation, trends in the industry and above all, a ¶ sense of direction. Additionally, the research provided some insights about the potential ¶ impacts for society and the economy of the use of nanotechnology. The project brought clarity ¶ and informed judgment to the process of policy formation and goal identification in the ¶ framework of developing countries. North-South initiatives are modeled globally Science Daily 05 (Science Daily News, “Nanotechnology's Miniature Answers To Developing World's Biggest Problems”, 05/12/2005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512120050.htm//VS) "Resource-rich member nations of the international community have a self-interest and a moral obligation to support the development and use by less industrialized countries of these top 10 nanotechnologies to address key development challenges," says Dr. Abdallah Daar, MD, Director for Ethics and Policy of the McLaughlin Centre for Molecular Medicine and codirector of the CPGGH.¶ "We propose an initiative, called Addressing Global Challenges Using Nanotechnology, that can be modelled on the Grand Challenges in Global Health initiative launched last year by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.¶ "A grand challenge directs investigators to seek a specific scientific or technological breakthrough that would overcome obstacles to solving significant development problems. In our proposed initiative, a specific Grand Challenges in Nanotechnology project would foster scientific and technological advances that would encourage development in less industrialized countries . The top 10 nanotechnology applications identified in our current study are a good starting point for defining these grand challenges.¶ "Our results can provide guidance to developing countries themselves to help target their growing initiatives in nanotechnology . The goal should be to use nanotechnology responsibly to generate real benefits for the 5 billion people in the developing world." Mexico Key – Region-Specific Nano Latin America nanotech key to more nanotech innovation in the developing world Matsuura 6 (Jeffrey H. Matsuura, Assistant Professor and Director of the Program in Law & Technology at the University of Dayton Law School in Dayton, Ohio, “Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide,” July 2006, http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10160965, AC) An increasing number of countries in the developing world are launching their own nanotechnology efforts. For example, Brazil has committed to invest approximately $30 million in 2005 and 2006 toward launch of its National Programme for the Development of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. This effort to link academic institutions and private companies into a research and commercialization network is intended to move nanotechnology more quickly into applications of greatest relevance to the people of Brazil. Brazil’s neighbor, Argentina, also made a significant commitment to nanotechnology. The government of Argentina announced plans to invest $10 million in nanoscience research over a period of five years. Elsewhere in Latin America, Mexico and Chile have also invested in directed nanotechnology research programs. Many of these research initiatives are directed primarily toward nanotechnology applications affecting fundamental developing country needs. Developing countries tend to focus on two key aspects of nanotechnology development. One is the rapid application of nanotechnology advances to fields such as health care, agriculture, and communication that have the most immediate and most significant relevance to their population. The second area of focus is the development of research and development infrastructures that can be used to facilitate education and economic development in the future, for other applications. A condition that is complicating the discussion associated with nanotechnology and the developing world is the segmentation that now exists between groups of developing countries. Some of the more rapidly developing nations that have traditionally been part of the developing world (e.g., Thailand, Brazil, South Africa) are making more rapid advances than their peers in the realm of science and technology, including nanoscience and nanotechnology. This dynamic nearly results in the creation of three categories of participants when issues associated with nanotechnology development and management are discussed in global arenas.
