Ac version 3 Observation 1: sq 4

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 scientific information originating overseas. NSF recognized that a 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.

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. Military’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 the end of the 19th century had a clear impact on the circulation of merchandise and people. But 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 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/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/understanding-public-debate-on-nanotechnologies_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/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/understanding-public-debate-on-nanotechnologies_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§ion=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§ion=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: [e-mail]. 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: [e-mail]. 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.