WEEKLY WHINE

Interaction: Can knowledge be dangerous?

Myers: Good evening, and welcome to our Warwickshire studios for another edition of Interaction. This week we'll be discussing the role of ethics in science, with special attention given to how society could be affected by misuse of science. Are the oft cited doomsday scenarios founded in fact or fiction? Will the income gap narrow or broaden given current efforts? Should we spend more time worrying about what might happen, making it happen, or wondering why it didn't happen? Here to tackle these issues, plus many others, are the members of this week's panel. First, joining us from Parma is the associate director of the Nanotechnology Institute of Italy, Ms Julia van Armstead.

van Armstead: Good evening.

Myers: In Hong Kong is the director of the high energy physics division at the Hong Kong Science Policy Centre, Mr Frank Cheng.

Cheng: Hello Debbie.

Myers: In Boston, MA, we have the author of The Dos and Don'ts of Quarks, Mr Arturo de Vendedera.

de Vendedera: Good evening.

Myers: And with me here in our Warwickshire studios is Ms Ruby McFruff, professor of scientific ethics at Lokeren State University.

McFruff: Good to be here.

Myers: Thank you all for joining us here today. Julia, we'll go to you first. As a nanotechnology expert, what dangers do you see nanotechnology posing within the next several decades?

van Armstead: Well, Debbie, there are numerous dangers. There is a danger that we'll never finish cranial implants that will allow you to see around corners and play your MP3s directly into your brain. There is a danger that your kitchen counter will never be able to clean itself. But above all else, the most serious danger is that we won't get enough funding to ensure that all this wonderful stuff will in fact happen.

Myers: I think we can all relate to that. Frank, with what matters of policy is your organisation concerned at this time?

Cheng: We're also in favour of increased funding.

Myers: Noble sentiments there. Arturo, do you feel adequate attention is being given to the issue of scientific ethics?

de Vendedera: More attention simply must be paid to scientific ethics. We have scientists creating Frankenrice! Franken-freaking-rice! And nobody knows the side effects! This is criminal. We must think more or else we'll think less.

Myers: Certainly important points there. Ruby, would you agree?

McFruff: I'd agree that we must think more. But I think you'll find that scientists have a very good track record. Look at Kepler. Planck. That other guy.

de Vendedera: Now wait a minute. That's ridiculous. What about Pavlov? de Boer?

van Armstead: What about them?

de Vendedera: I don't know. Who are they again?

Cheng: I also don't know who they are.

van Armstead: Pavlov and de Boer were excellent examples of ethical scientists! de Boer, for example, bashed gold with alpha particles. You don't think Fort Knox loved him for that?

de Vendedera: Wasn't that Rutherford?

van Armstead: What? No.

de Vendedera: I'm pretty sure it was Rutherford.

Myers: Ernest Rutherford, yes. The gold foil experiment was conducted in 1911.

de Vendedera: And I don't think he got the gold from Fort Knox either.

van Armstead: [holding back tears] Shut up! Just shut up!

Myers: Yes, well, it's time to begin taking questions from our viewers. As usual you have several ways to interact with Interaction. They're now on your screen, and those of you viewing us in high definition might want to take a moment and determine which digit there had a blemish on it. We're going to activate the telephone lines now and speak with Hans in Rostock, Germany. Hans, are you there?

Hans in Rostock: What?

Myers: Hans, this is Debbie on Interaction. Can you hear me?

Hans in Rostock: Becky?

Myers: Um -

Becky in Rostock: [shouting from afar] Ja?

Hans in Rostock: Becky, I'm hearing voices in my ear again!

Becky in Rostock: [shouting from afar] Ach! Fische, die Dachs essen!

Myers: Hans, this is Debbie in Warwickshire. What is your question?

Hans in Rostock: They are asking me if I have a question!

Becky in Rostock: [shouting from afar] Toast ist rechteckig! Just ask what the term "grey goo" means!

Hans in Rostock: Okay. What does the term "grey goo" mean?

Myers: A useful question. Ruby?

McFruff: Well, "grey goo" is a term oft used by doomsayers when they want everyone to think that nanobots will be programmed incorrectly and will go around devouring things without ever stopping, rendering our world a consistent ick. But that would never happen.

Myers: Well, that's good to know.

McFruff: It would be more a sort of greenish brown.

Cheng: We're also thinking that it would be more greenish brown.

Myers: I see. Well, Hans, thanks for that question. Lance in San Mateo, CA, USA has asked our next question by E-mail. He wants to know if the designer baby phenomenon is taking off and if so, where catalogues are available. Arturo?

de Vendedera: Designer babies are an irresponsible use of technology. Parents should not be allowed to choose the hair colour, height, or sexual orientation of their offspring! They should be free to choose themselves!

van Armstead: I'd like to be able to choose my own height.

de Vendedera: Because you're too tall, aren't you?

van Armstead: [crossing arms] No.

de Vendedera: Yeah you are. You're freakishly tall. I bet guys are afraid to go out with you because they don't want it to look like you're the dominant one.

van Armstead: That's not true!

de Vendedera: You know, if this nanotechnology thing doesn't work out for you, you could always play in the WNBA!

van Armstead: Stop it! You know I don't like basketball!

de Vendedera: You love basketball, don't you? You just love going deep into the post and boxing out for rebounds, don't you? You shoot hundreds of free throws every day hoping that when you get fouled by Tina Thompson with two seconds left in Game 5 of the WNBA Finals you'll sink them both and win by one, bringing the New York Liberty their first championship! That's what you wish for, isn't it?

van Armstead: Stop it! Stop it stop it stop it! I hate you!

Myers: Yes, well, with that we're going to have to move on to our next question. Sandy in Sucre, Bolivia, sent us a fax that poses the question, "Is it right to introduce human genes into plants and other things?" Julia?

van Armstead: [sniffling] Yeah?

Myers: Would you like to answer this question?

van Armstead: [nodding] Mm-hmm.

de Vendedera: Yeah, go ahead. Unless you're chicken.

van Armstead: Am not!

de Vendedera: Are too!

van Armstead: Am not!

Myers: That's enough, you two.

van Armstead: He started it!

de Vendedera: No I didn't! You did!

van Armstead: Nuh-uh!

de Vendedera: Yuh-huh!

van Armstead: Nuh-uh!

de Vendedera: Yuh-huh!

van Armstead: Nuh-uh!

de Vendedera: Yuh-huh!

Myers: Enough! Nobody gets to answer that question.

van Armstead: But Debbie!

de Vendedera: That's not fair!

Myers: No, you've had your chance. Ruby, you answer the question.

McFruff: I can't remember what it was.

Cheng: I also forgot the question.

Myers: Well, that ought to put an end to Interaction this evening. Thanks to Ms Ruby McFruff, Mr Arturo de Vendedera, Mr Frank Cheng, and Ms Julia van Armstead for being here tonight. Next week we'll discuss the capture of Bobby Fischer in Japan, and we'll be joined by American and Japanese diplomats, a Russian chess player, and someone who has a chess board tattooed on his back. Good night.

de Vendedera: I knew Ruby was your favourite.

Myers: [sighing] That's not true. I love all of you equally.