Ac version 3 Observation 1: sq 4

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 extinction of humans.

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 EU-Argentina 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