Matthew Cimone

On December 24th, 1968, Apollo 8 astronauts captured an image that came to be known as “Earthrise.” It would later be featured in Time Magazine’s “100 Photographs that Changed the World” alongside images such as Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong guerrilla, the rising mushroom cloud over Nagasaki, and the shootings at Kent State. Earth-rise depicts just as its name suggests: rather than the Sun cresting over the horizon of the Earth, the image is of the Earth cresting over the horizon of the Moon. The Apollo 8 mission’s three astronauts were the first humans to leave Earth’s orbit and be captured by the gravitational field of the Moon. What they brought back changed humanity forever.

Earthrise has become one of the most reproduced images in the history of humankind (and is being air-brushed onto a guitar of mine, as we speak). The photo is credited as a flagship symbol of modern environmental movements. It is not difficult to imagine the factors that propelled this image to such a status. In 2012, images of the Earth from orbit are commonplace; we have all seen satellite images, IMAX films, Discovery Channel and the list goes on. But in 1968, staring back at our planet over the crest of the Moon, for the very first time, humanity saw itself reflected in a mirror in the background of deep space. Looking back at Earth, life seemed fragile, in a brand new way, for the very first time.

From high above the Earth, you recognize some truths that we do not always get to observe from the ground; truths that we, as a society, try hard to forget. There are no coloured lines separating countries or nations. The only separations mapped onto the surface are the divides between land and water. The fragility of the planet comes instantaneously to the observer in space. Astronauts described the atmosphere of Earth to appear as “thin as the peel of an onion”. Just above that horizon, circling the Earth every 90 minutes, ocean pollution, oil fires, and effects of deforestation can easily be seen. Every 90 minutes.

Though we have not ventured physically into deep space, we can already confirm that there are billions of planets alone in the Milky Way. We have yet to find a habitable planet that could cradle life the same way as the Earth has. And, even if we discovered them, we would have no means to reach them. The closest star to our solar system is just over four lights-years away. That is approximately 2.3513993 x 10^13 miles. Voyager 1, followed by Voyager 2, both launched by NASA in 1977, took over 30 years to reach the edge of our solar system and is only now venturing into interstellar space. In space terms, if you were driving from Toronto to Vancouver where Toronto was our solar system and Vancouver was the next closest star, Voyager 1, in 33 years, would not reach Saskatchewan, or Manitoba, or the borders of GTA, or even the 401 on-ramp. In space terms, we have just arrived at the edge of the driveway.

And let’s face it: if we burn down this house (the only one that we have ever known), there is nowhere else to go.

Earthrise is sobering because it offers perspective; something that we, as a species, desperately need. And where our use of technology is often questionable, the one deployment of our tools I always approved of is in the pursuit of self-reflection. Two such programs require our attention.

The Sudan Sentinel utilizes satellite technology to monitor and report human rights violations in Southern Sudan. A network of orbiting commercial satellites collects data while sweeping over the country. The data is analyzed and provides reports on forced population displacements, ordinance detonations, formation of mass graves and village fires in real time 24 hours a day. This information is then used to propagate awareness of human rights violations to the global community. Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have carried out so-called “counter-insurgency” missions against its own people, and the Sentinel already has allowed us to monitor the SAF’s attacks on the few remaining health clinics and targeted refugee settlements where people have been forced to flee to the mountain caves to save their lives.

On a much different note, the second program is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) soon to be the replacement of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope, launched in 1990, is currently still in orbit and provide us an incredible window into deep space to remind us that we are a unique yet very small part of the heavens. This past summer, the US Congress attempted to scrap the JWST after recent estimates placed the scope at 16 times its original budget. Hubble will not last much longer. It has already been operational for 22 years. Without a viable replacement, we lose that stellar vista and a legacy we have helped to build for humanity as a whole. Rather than scrap JWST, NASA decided to squeeze the budgets out of almost every other project to ensure that this window to the universe remains open. JWST is scheduled to be launched in 2018 and will have 17 times the light gathering power than Hubble. The photos that come back from this piece of technology will be… well… astronomical!

Having worked in the humanitarian aid sector, I am often questioned about my interest in space science. I am asked, for example, “How many could we feed with the 8 billion dollars we are spending on a space telescope?” That is a fair question. My answer: We can do both. And we really should be. While the space program is often focused on the study of things beyond the confines of our celestial ball, it would seem that space exploration brings home a deeper sense of self. In our first journey to the moon, the iconic photo is not of our alien neighbour, but of our home. I believe, as those touched by Earthrise do that we treat our world differently when we recognize that there are no borders from orbit and our actions can actively shape to build a better future for our planet.

Matthew Cimone is the founder of a community development organization called Esther’s Echo and is currently producing the film “Chasing Atlantis” which documents the journey of 5 Canadians on a road trip from Toronto to Florida to see the final space shuttle launch. He is currently launching a new site called No Borders from Orbit that explores the intersections between space sciences, science fiction and social justice.

Links
James Webb Space Telescope: www.jwst.nasa.gov
Sudan Sentinel: www.satsentinel.org
Chasing Atlantis: www.chasingatlantis.com
Esther’s Echo: www.esthersecho.org

S.E. Smith

Rare earth metals are, if you’re reading this, all around you. They’re in your computer or tablet or mobile device. They’re in the cell phone you may own, and in the other technology you rely on for tasks of daily living. You can find them in the batteries of hybrid cars and in a myriad of other places. With the technology boom has come a spike in the usage of rare earth metals because they’re critical for the construction of some many of the components we need to make technology work. They may have exotic names that are difficult to pronounce, but they’re ubiquitous in daily life in developed communities.

Technology, we are often reminded, is the hope of the future, is the thing we are relying upon for great social and political change. There’s been an especially big push in the use of green technology, and the applications of technology to environmental issues. Technology is touted as the solution to many of our problems, but it carries some problems of its own, some of which go ignored in the haste to promote technological innovation. With tech also come, of course, jobs, which is a particularly critical issue in many regions of the world.

The darker shadows that underlie technology are growing with increasing technological reliance; labour issues abound, for example, as numerous recent exposures on working conditions in manufacturing facilities illustrate. Export of labour to nations with inexpensive labour forces and minimal workplace regulation is very common, and consumers are often not aware, sometimes willfully, of the costs behind cheap technology. Or not so cheap technology; Apple has a lengthy history of human rights abuses in their Chinese manufacturing plants, and their products are not made cheaper by the use of heavily exploited labour.

Environmental costs associated with rare earth metals are quite significant. First, you have to extract them. Then, you have to purify them. After they’re distributed into technology, they often end up in landfills because it is less costly to simply toss equipment than it is to recycle. A push in the direction of electronics recycling has come with its own set of environmental and social problems. And addressing these issues is not a simple process, especially when consumers do not play an active role. Consumers have immense power, when they choose to use it, over the companies they patronize and the kinds of goods they buy, but they need to exercise that power.

Mining is a dirty industry. Some of that dirt is unavoidable because the industry has to tear into the earth to access useful metals and minerals. In other cases, it is avoidable, but only at great cost. Mining companies resist environmental reform because they want to make more money off their products. Some claim it is impossible to provide metals and minerals at the costs demanded by manufacturers, under pressure from consumers. It is for these reasons that they think they are forced to be dirty, because there is no other choice if they want to remain competitive in the industry. Attempts to commit to using clean metals require too much money, and consumers aren’t willing to pay a premium.

Rare metal extraction involves substantial pollution in the mining, onsite processing, and refining phase. Mines create environmental degradation through topsoil loss, poorly controlled tailings ponds that leach into groundwater as well as lakes and rivers, roads slicing through habitat, and the use of large amounts of energy to extract and process the materials they uncover. Some rare earth metals require substantial processing, and that provides a number of opportunities for pollution at every step of the way.

The hard physical labour and exposure to pollution also make it hard to find workers. Mine locations are predicated by deposits in the Earth’s crust, but workforces can be imported, if necessary, if a facility is located in a region where no locals are willing to work in a mine. Mining is hot, dirty work and it comes with few labour protections in some regions. Vast mines in regions like South Africa work people to excess, for very minimal pay, and often do not provide their workers with basic health and safety protections. Here in the United States, mining work continues to be unsafe despite supposedly tough labour laws, and it is among the most dangerous occupations.

After mining and processing, rare earth metals coast along as people use electronic equipment, until that equipment reaches the end of its usable life. Technology is increasingly designed to be disposable in nature. People do not fix their technology; they replace it. It is often cheaper to buy new than to repair, and people may be discouraged from seeking repairs; why would you want to replace that DVD drive when your processor is outdated? Your phone can’t support the latest applications, so you might as well get rid of it if it’s starting to fail, and replace it with a new one that will do the job more effectively.

What happens to discarded electronics? Some end up in landfills, where they create pollution problems of their own as their contents slowly leach out. Many landfills do not have liners equipped to handle things like rare earth metals, which means that surrounding communities get sick as toxins leach out of the garbage. Other consumers send their electronics to recyclers, many under the impression that they are doing a good thing, which it seems like they should be. Reduce, reuse, recycle is a common phrase for a reason, after all.

Some recycling facilities behave responsibly and ethically. They provide their workers with protection from the toxins they encounter on the job, they use pollution controls to limit spill into the surrounding community. Others, however, do not. Many of these unscrupulous operators are located in the developing world, where they can pay workers pennies for dirty, dangerous work with absolutely no protections. Abandoned equipment is left where it is while toxins and chemicals leach out, and people expose themselves to dangerous materials as they attempt to wrench anything of value from discarded electronics. The process inevitably creates pollution and makes people sick, but they have few options for treatment, let alone environmental protection.

Tighter regulations are one solution to the environmental costs of the tech boom. So are changes to the way people think about and interact with technology. Repair, rather than replacement, should be the order of the day. Ethically sourced supplies should be made more available, and the industry should be subject to more intense oversight. Companies that outsource or import labour to exploit people should be publicly shamed for what they do, whether that labour is in mines or recycling centres.

Zipporah Weisberg

Institutionalized Torture

Like most major universities and research institutions across North America, York University is home to numerous research projects involving nonhuman animals. Most departments in the Faculty of Health and the Faculty of Science and Engineering use animals — including rats, mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, and probably cats and dogs — for research and educational purposes. Psychology, Biology, and Kinesiology, for example, use a variety of animals for psychological, behavioural, and physiological experiments, while the Centre for Vision Research conducts experiments on macaque monkeys.

Through a Freedom of Information Request, York Students for Animals, a campus animal advocacy group, has been able to ascertain that from Jan. 2010 to Nov. 2011, approximately 105 research protocols using animals were approved. Of these, roughly 30 were listed as “category D” or the most highly invasive procedures, which “cause moderate to severe stress or pain,” and include: “prolonged (several hours or more) period[s] of physical restraint,” “induction of behavioural stresses such as maternal deprivation, aggression, predator-prey interaction,” “induction of anatomical or physiological abnormalities that will result in pain or distress,” “exposure of an animal to noxious stimuli from which escape is impossible,” “production of radiation sickness,” and “exposure to drugs or chemicals that may impair the physiological system.” Category B and C experiments are also very likely to cause pain and distress in animals. They include “acute non-survival studies,” “decapitation preceded by sedation or light anesthesia,” “behavioural experiments on conscious animals that involve short-term stressful restraint,” and “short periods of food and/or water deprivation which excee[d] periods of abstinence in nature.”

Although these experiments are couched in detached scientific terms, and although some are said to cause “minor” stress or pain, it is plainly obvious that they will result in profound psychological and physical anguish. Maternal deprivation experiments are particularly cruel as evinced by those conducted by Harry Harlow, an American psychologist at the University of Madison-Wisconsin in the 1950s and 60s. Harlow replaced infant monkeys’ biological mothers with “surrogates” or mannequins which would emit extreme cold, heat, and even spikes, when touched. He also invented a cylindrical isolation chamber, the so-called “Well of Despair,” into which he would place the terrified creatures for days at a time. While maternal deprivation experiments at York may not involve the same procedures, the fact that they take place at all should be cause for alarm. The agony caused by experiments involving direct exposure to radiation and chemicals is self-evident. Burns, lesions, poisoning, damage to vital organs, and other horrors likely ensue. It is without question that food and water deprivation beyond natural shortages in nature will cause extreme suffering as will “stressful restraint,” whether for a few minutes or a few hours.

It is not hyperbole to suggest that these and all the other procedures listed above constitute torture. Stressful restraint and food and water deprivation, for example, recall common forms of torture inflicted on human beings in prisons and detention centres around the world today. The UN “Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” defines torture in part as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.” Of course, the UN convention applies only to human beings. However, when we consider that many experiments call for deliberately inflicting suffering on animals for the purposes of obtaining “information,” there is no reason it should not apply to animals as well.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), a key figure in the development of modern experimental science and the inspiration behind the modern research institution, borrowed the language of the Inquisition to characterize his scientific pursuits. Just as suspected heretics could be led to ‘confess’ their crimes, or reveal their secrets under torture — the latter of which Bacon referred to as “vexation” — so can ‘nature.’ As Bacon put it, “the secrets of nature reveal themselves more readily under the vexations of art than when they go their own way.” The paradigm of mechanistic science — which views living beings literally as machines made up of a series of parts which can be assembled, disassembled, and reassembled at will — is also to blame for institutionalizing animal torture. French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) compared animals to clocks and characterized them as automata. This view gave him license to engage in the most heinous of experiments including nailing unanesthetized dogs to boards and cutting them open while fully conscious to analyze their circulation. Judging from the list of allowable procedures outlined above, it appears that in the 500-odd years since Descartes committed these atrocities, our attitudes and practices have not changed a whole lot.

Lab animals’ misery extends beyond the experiments themselves. Many so-called “purpose-bred” animals such as rats, mice, dogs (especially beagle puppies), cats, and nonhuman primates are shipped by air in sealed crates to university campuses from breeding facilities all over the world. Lost cats and dogs are given a measly three days to be reclaimed by their owners before an animal shelter is legally entitled to sell them to a research facility at a cost of approximately $2-6. Once animals arrive at the lab, they are typically confined in small, barren cages and crates where they are denied the opportunity to express or engage in any of their natural behaviours. Lab animals never get a chance to run or play, bask in the sun, roll in the dirt, splash in the water, cuddle with their young or companions, or interact with others in a meaningful way. Instead, they are condemned to lives of boredom, loneliness, and misery in the steel cages of sterile labs.

Animals are also used for educational purposes at York University. In human anatomy classes, for example, York students are expected to perform dissections of dead cats to obtain basic and long-established anatomical and physiological knowledge. Students are often traumatized by this experience but are too afraid of academic penalty or stigmatization to voice their concern. Most students do not know that it is their human right to opt-out of animal dissections and research due to conscientious objection, and that the university can be fined up to $25,000 for not accommodating them. They are also unaware that sophisticated virtual dissection software has made dissections obsolete.

‘Necessary’ Suffering? Paradoxes, Prejudices, and the Tragedy of Modern Science

Those who support animal research typically suggest it is ‘necessary’ on scientific grounds. Without animal research, we have no hope of finding the cure for cancer or HIV, the argument goes. However, the recent ongoing failure of HIV vaccines to perform at the clinical trial stage suggests otherwise. There is also increasing evidence to suggest that using animals as models for human disease and drug and vaccine development is potentially dangerous. Dr. Ray Greek, a former anesthesiologist and animal researcher, and founder of Americans for Medical Advancement, argues animals cannot be used as predictive models for the study of the pathophysiology of human disease because there is simply too much individual, genetic, and biological variation between and among species to accurately extrapolate data from one to the other. As he explains, “even two nearly identical complex systems (e.g., a chimpanzee and a human or even monozygotic twins) may respond differently to drugs and experience different diseases.”

The most recent example of the dangers of non-homology is the TGN412 clinical trial disaster in 2006. The drug had been successfully tested on nonhuman primates, but left the six human participants in intensive care with multiple organ failure and massive head swelling. In response to this fiasco, Kent Woods, chief executive of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, admitted that, “We believe there was a powerful pharmacological action of this drug in man that was not detected or detectable in animals.” In an article in the prestigious science journal Nature, Michael Hopkin similarly concluded that “preliminary animal tests may not spot potential dangers.” Even if animal research does lead us closer to cures and vaccines, should we even be asking ourselves whether subjecting sentient beings to extreme violence is ever ‘necessary’?

Framing the debate in terms of whether animal research is ‘necessary’ or ‘unnecessary’ is spurious at best for it presupposes that it is acceptable to torture other sentient beings as long as one can find a passable reason. When examined more closely it appears that the reasoning used to justify animal experiments is riddled with paradoxes and prejudices. As philosopher Charles R. Magel observes, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are like us.’ Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are not like us.’ Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.”

The view that nonhuman animals’ ostensibly inferior intelligence justifies subjecting them to systemic violence is built on equally shaky ground. As Peter Singer points out, dogs can be considered more intelligent than babies. Does this give us license to harm babies? Surely not! For Singer, what matters ethically is not a being’s level of intelligence but whether or not it is capable of suffering and enjoyment and whether it has an interest in not being harmed. The rats, pigs, mice, cats, dogs, nonhuman primates, and other animals we torture in laboratories certainly meet these criteria. It appears that our failure to accord them ethical consideration comes down to nothing more than plain old-fashioned prejudice. Just as sexists and racists privilege one group over another on the basis of sex or race membership, so, according to Singer, “speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.”

These paradoxes and prejudices are what we might call the tragedy of modern science. Most researchers see themselves as genuinely dedicated to improving the lives of both humans and animals. But in a scientific paradigm inspired by the Baconian-Cartesian mechanist model and steeped in centuries of speciesism, researchers are conditioned to desensitize themselves to animal suffering. Some animal researchers defy this model and attempt to cultivate a bond with some of their animal subjects. However, such connections are rare, and in any case are constrained and distorted by the framework of domination in which they are forged. Of course, not all research involving animals is cruel. Cognitive ethologists, for example, study animal minds, emotionality, and sociality by observing and sometimes interacting with animals in their natural habitats. Unfortunately, this approach is the exception.

The animal research community’s underlying ambivalence (and guilt) towards its own practices is reflected in the various techniques it employs to keep the species divide wide, and to keep inconvenient emotions such as care and compassion out of the way. To make sure they are viewed as specimens not subjects, lab animals are typically assigned numbers or codes instead of names, and are referred to as ‘animal models.’ Religious language is even appropriated to ‘sanctify’ the horrific practices which take place in labs: animals are not killed, we are told, they are ‘sacrificed,’ supposedly for the betterment of humanity, but more often than not for the betterment of the profit margin of Big Pharma. In a deliberate attempt to conceal the violence it facilitates, the industry-backed body responsible for ‘overseeing’ and approving animal research protocols (there are almost no laws or regulations governing animal research, only ‘guidelines’), is called the “Canadian Council on Animal Care.” If the same body is responsible for providing care to the animals it condemns to category D experiments, the concept of ‘care’ takes on a whole new and twisted meaning — in fact it is emptied of meaning altogether.

The Way Forward: Alternatives and a New Scientific Paradigm

Though the abolition of animal experimentation at York U and beyond is clearly an uphill battle, some progress has been made recently. For example, Hainan Airlines was scheduled to ship nonhuman primates destined for labs from China to Toronto. Due to pressure by animal advocacy groups, including York Students for Animals and U of T Animal Rights Club, they decided to join numerous other major airlines including American Airlines, British Airways, United Airlines, and many more, in banning primate shipments. The Globe and Mail recently ran an article about the University of Toronto’s decision not to purchase any more nonhuman primates for research after the death of its last macaque monkey. This is a mixed blessing, for it only reinforces the species hierarchy by suggesting that only animals that are most similar to humans should be spared, while the well-being of other animals such as rats and mice does not matter.

Animals’ greatest hope lies in the research and development of alternatives to the use of animals in research and education. Numerous sophisticated alternatives including models and simulators, film and video, multimedia computer simulation, student self-experimentation, clinical practice, and in vitro labs have already been developed. Test tube nerve cells are now being used instead of animals in the search for treatments for disfiguring genetic diseases, and some vaccines are now being developed in vitro. Unfortunately, because science is still stuck in the old paradigm, funding is still weighed heavily towards animal research. Plenty of money is being poured into biotechnology, but biotechnology is part of the problem, not the solution. In developing and patenting transgenic and hybrid animals — or animals whose genome has been deliberately modified, often with the genes of another species — and cloned animals, the biotechnology industry reinforces animals’ status as instruments and commodities. For real change to take place, a shift in consciousness is needed in which our current attitude of violent domination towards other creatures is replaced with humility, respect, and (genuine) care.

To help precipitate this shift, YSFA has launched a humane research and education campaign at York U. To find out more contact: yustudentsforanimals@gmail.com.

Christopher Butcher

In my final year of film school, I decided to research and direct a short documentary about something that had intrigued me greatly: nanotechnology. I had enjoyed reading articles in New Scientist and watching TED talks on the subject, and decided that if I were to make a film on the subject, it would need to find and focus on areas where the new technology might begin to make societal changes that were harder to spot, or perhaps undesirable if not accounted for. Then I wondered, are there some problems being overshadowed by all of the excitement surrounding this field?

I focussed the film on a few medical applications of nanotechnology that were in early development at the time. The more I read, and spoke with people in the field, the more I noticed similar ethical and environmental issues kept resurfacing. I would like to present my understanding of what I think people should know about the current state of the field, and where it appears to be going.

So, what exactly is nanotechnology? The simplest and most inclusive definition I have comes across is from the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which defines it as “the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometres.” A nanometre is one-billionth the size of a metre  many orders of magnitude smaller than the point of a needle. The “nano” prefix simply implies that something is either nanoscopic, or has an important feature, which is smaller than 100 nanometres.

Why is the nanoscale so important? Are we not just finding ways of making existing things, like transistors, smaller? Many of the processors in our computers and cell phones have miniaturized components well within the nanoscale, and this has been the case for years. But there are more important reasons why understanding and controlling matter at this length scale is so important.

Consider the following: the nanoscale is actually the crossover point between where matter acts as we generally see it (i.e. in the macro- or even microscopic length scales) and where it begins to take on the unfamiliar properties of the underlying quantum nature of the material. An object visible to our unaided eye, but which has certain structures at the nanoscale, will look different. Nature itself has hit upon beautiful nanoscale structures resulting in, for example, the shimmering iridescent colours of the South American Morpho butterfly’s wings.

I will not even attempt to cover the physics at work here, but you should understand that being able to alter these “size-dependent properties” means that a material that is not usually magnetic, for example, might begin to display magnetic properties as its particle size decreases into the nanoscale. Keep in mind that the chemistry of the material  let’s say it’s made of silver  does not change, but instead its properties change. The same goes for materials changing the ways in which they reflect or absorb light, conduct or resist heat or electricity, or even how strong, brittle, or water-resistant they are. Imagine having paint on your car that automatically heals over scratches when exposed to sunlight  this has in fact been demonstrated by scientists at The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg in 2009.

You can already see how this level of control would lead to amazing innovations and products. What you may not know, however, is that there are hundreds of products using nanotechnology already on the market, and most of them have nothing to do with miniaturized computer components. In fact, it is likely that you have already encountered many of them, and did not know it. The number of current products and applications are too many to mention here, but they include protective films on eyeglasses for water, dirt and scratch resistance, new cosmetics and cleansers, air purifiers and filters, beverage containers that keep soft drinks carbonated longer, more efficient solar cells, and lightweight ballistic body armor.

Secondly, the building of materials and devices on this length scale is also appealing because many of the wonders of biology do their work here. The DNA double helix, for example, has a diameter of roughly 2.5 nanometres. This means that the molecules of life are therefore significantly easier to measure and even alter with precision. The potential ethical implications of re-designing or enhancing someone’s DNA should be obvious. The third major benefit of scaling down to the nano realm is that nanomaterials (materials that have special properties stemming from their nanoscale dimensions) have a much greater surface area-to-volume ratio over normal materials. This leads them to have many more potential points of contact with other materials. For this reason, this makes nanomaterials much more chemically reactive.

Under the umbrella of nanotechnology, there are many fields of study, and of course there are and will be many new or enhanced products as a result. Nanomaterials made in very small quantities are called nanoparticles. These can be used in the manufacturing of otherwise ordinary products to make so-called ‘nanoproducts’ such as the ones mentioned above.

All of these features and benefits sound wonderful and they are. But as I will discuss below, each of these new benefits carries with them new challenges and even some dangers in unforeseen or unintended contexts. To begin with, manufacturing a nanoproduct can result in the creation of excess nanoparticles as by-products. These particles have the ability to become airborne, and it has been shown that particles smaller than 300 nanometres are small enough to be taken up by plant and animal cells. You can probably spot one of the potential dangers lurking here. In fact, the field of nanotoxicology has sprung up to study such scenarios.

At this point, you would surely agree that we ought to be careful about how we manufacture, use and dispose of products made with or enhanced through nanotechnology. But as I have mentioned, the products are already here and they are here to stay. A 2006 market research report by Lux Research predicted that by 2014, $2.6 trillion U.S. in globally manufactured goods might incorporate nanotechnology (about 15% of all goods). As of this year, there are 7,464 nanotech patents registered in the United States, with 10% of those issued in 2011 alone. So what is being done to ensure that these products are safe to make, use, and eventually be disposed of?

The first follow-up question at this point must be: can we use our existing regulatory bodies and infrastructure to handle nanoproducts and their resulting materials and particles? Or, should we regulate them completely differently than other potentially dangerous materials? In Canada, as well as in the United States, nanomaterials are handled using the existing regulatory framework; in other words, in the same way as with any other potentially dangerous chemicals. To many nanoscientists (including several I interviewed for the film), a problem with most existing regulation of chemicals is the fact that toxicity and dose-response testing is usually done on the basis of the number of particles involved.

However, nanoscientists have shown that same number (or mass) of nanoparticles are more toxic than an equal number of chemically identical, but non-nanoscale, particles. In a paper for the UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy on the topic of nanoparticle regulation, Dr. Bernard Goldstein writes, “Nanotechnology’s promise to produce more with less, and to have characteristics that cannot be predicted based upon the actions of the same chemical in its non-nano form, present challenges to regulatory regimes based upon the ‘laws’ of toxicology.”

“Inherent within the approaches to additional toxicological testing is the unstated but false assumptions [sic] that current toxicological testing techniques are adequate to protect the public against the adverse effects of chemical and physical agents prior to introduction into the workplace or marketing. They are not.” Goldstein continues, “This short-sightedness appears to apply as well to nanotechnology.”

Thankfully, the first steps are being taken in Canada, the United States and the European Union, at least, to recognize and respond to nanomaterial production and use. At present, Health Canada’s Acts and Regulations make no explicit references to nanomaterials. Health Canada instead uses the existing legislative and regulatory framework to “mitigate the potential health risks of nanomaterials and to help realize their health benefits.” That said, the department has recently formulated a policy statement on a working definition for a nanomaterial, based upon input from the community of nanoscientists and manufacturers. The new definition takes into consideration properties such as nanoparticle size, chemical reactivity, and surface-to-volume ratio. Getting the definitions sorted out seems to be the right first step in ensuring that the new technology can prosper, while making clear the potential risks.

Health Canada admits that dealing with nanomaterials using the existing regulatory framework may not be enough. “It is recognized that new approaches may be necessary in the future to keep pace with advances in this area as there is inadequate information on risks associated with nanomaterials at this time.”

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Food and Drug Administration have begun to assess the potential health and environmental dangers of nanoparticles. In an effort similar to that of Health Canada, the EPA has proposed a Significant New Use Rule to the existing Toxic Substances Control Act, to add nano-specific regulation. Currently, the TSCA covers how “chemical substances are manufactured and used in a manner that protects against unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.” But strictly speaking, nanoscale materials are not considered fundamentally different from other chemicals.

Consistent with the Bush administration’s 2007 decision that no special regulations or labeling of nanomaterials were required, the FDA also does not require this. In 2006, the FDA came under criticism following its approval of a sunscreen product containing titanium dioxide nanoparticles. The nanoparticles in this case were used as a less-visible thickening agent. The criticism came when it became clear that, while the FDA had tested for immediate health effects of direct use of the product, it had not reviewed the impact on aquatic ecosystems when the sunscreen rubs off.

Just how serious this lack of precaution could be is indicated by a late 2011 finding by scientists at Lund University in Sweden; they have shown that “commercially manufactured polystyrene nanoparticles, transported through an aquatic food chain from algae, through zooplankton to fish, affect lipid metabolism and behaviour of the top consumer.” Negative effects observed in fish included “weight loss, the triglycerides-to-cholesterol ratio in blood serum, and the distribution of cholesterol between muscle and liver” as well as “metabolic effects” which affected the feeding behaviour of the fish.

It goes without saying how serious this might be, considering that polystyrene nanoparticles are a “common, FDA-approved substance found in substances ranging from food additives to vitamins,” according to a research collaboration led by Michael Shuler, a professor of Chemical Engineering and chair of Biomedical Engineering at Cornell University. In Feb. 2012, Shuler’s group reported that chickens exposed to these same nanoparticles were negatively affected in terms of how iron, an essential nutrient, was absorbed into their cells.

One has to wonder: are the existing regulatory frameworks adequate to deal with the difficulties posed by nanoparticle production? The answer seems unclear, as in most cases, it appears that regulations covering most other chemicals are being altered to accommodate nanomaterials, rather than new laws and regulations being introduced especially to handle the new substances.

In the meantime, there are several large-scale efforts to collect and share information about various nanomaterials, and much of this information comes with recommendations to regulatory bodies and lawmakers. For example, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies has begun to catalogue the thousands of nanoproducts already on store shelves. In the Inventory section of their website, they list a sunscreen product made by the Florida-based company Skin Rx Solutions called ‘Advanced Protection SPF 30 Oil w/ Clear Z COTE Zinc,’ alongside more than 30 similar nano-enhanced products. It appears that some amount of ‘catch up’ is necessary in the area of publicly available information on these products, including how they were tested.

Another major player in the nano advisory and education game is the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative. Their Environmental, Health and Safety strategy (EHS) seems up to the task of at least supporting a healthy dialogue about nanotechnologies and their responsible use. The NNI does not legislate or regulate; instead, they provide “guidance to the Federal agencies as they develop their agency-specific nanotechnology EHS research priorities, implementation plans, and timelines.”

The NNI’s budget in 2011 was $1.8 billion. Their goals include funding new research and development, helping companies produce new products, developing educational resources, and to “support responsible development of nanotechnology.” An additional $117 million was allocated in 2011 to the EHS strategy mentioned above.

One hopes that with this funding and support of the NNI, the EHS recommendations made in this strategy will be taken seriously by the federal agencies (the EPA and the FDA in particular), and new nano-specific laws will be drafted. The EHS-suggested risk assessment program seems to propose sound procedures for managing nanomaterials throughout their development and product life cycles: from raw materials, to research and development, to production, to consumer use, and finally to disposal or recycling.

Perhaps until we know more, caution should be the priority in the production of consumer products that contain painted-on or mixed-in nanoparticles. In my experience, most scientists are passionate about adhering to the precautionary principle; for me, the question of risk has more to do with hastily-produced consumer products. I interviewed researchers at the University of Toronto who were developing a ‘nanobiosensor’ to detect nucleic acids linked to prostate cancer, head and neck cancer, and leukemia. Accurate detection at the point of care would lead to faster prognoses and better drug decision-making. We should be excited about applications of nanotechnology of this sort, as they seem to be a no-brainer in terms of the immediate benefit they bring  so long as they can be manufactured without producing excess nanoparticles.

It seems that there are some important preventative and regulatory decisions to be made, and we certainly cannot get ahead of ourselves, especially with all of the promise that these technologies show. From the Canadian perspective, it is at least comforting that Health Canada has involved itself so much in this matter. After Canada decides on nanotechnology regulation, the question will likely be: should regulation of nanomaterials be global? Production of nanomaterials in China, or in other industrialised nations, would affect everyone, as nanoparticles are both invisible to the naked eye, and certainly do not respect national borders.

Christopher Butcher is a Toronto-based filmmaker and graduate of Film Studies at Ryerson University. His documentary “Nanoscience in Medicine” is free to watch, along with his other works at bambupictures.com.

Albert Einstein, arguably the most important physicist of the twentieth century, was also a life-long political radical who worked tirelessly in Germany and the United States to support anti-war, anti-imperialist, and anti-racist causes. Among many political campaigns, Einstein co-chaired the American Crusade to End Lynching, lobbied to open US immigration during WWII, supported the Communist- and Socialist-backed US Progressive Party, and encouraged refusal to testify before ‘red scare’ Senate committees. Albert Einstein wrote the following article for the inaugural issue of the Marxist publication Monthly Review in May 1948, and its political message remains just as relevant today.

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors, which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience, which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history, has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes, which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behaviour.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instil them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behaviour. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought. His life is made possible through the labour and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication has made possible developments among human beings, which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution, which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges, which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures that the social behaviour of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization, which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions, which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labour and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labour—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labour power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labour contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labour power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labour encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labour contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labour contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labour, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals, which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.