Tag Archives: Action Group on Erosion Technology and Concentration (ETC)

ETC group replies to Nature’s “Nanotechnology: Armed resistance” article

In late August 2012, Nature ran an open access article about terrorism used to fight nanotechnology research, “Nanotechnology: Armed resistance,” where more ‘moderate’ activist groups such as the ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) were implicated. From my Aug. 31, 2012 posting about the Aug. 30, 2012 Nature article by Leigh Phillips,

Phillips’ article goes on to discuss some of the more moderate groups including the Canada-based ETC Group, which has an office in Mexico,

Some researchers in Mexico say that more-moderate groups are stoking fears about nanotechnology. One such body is the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC, pronounced et cetera), a small but vocal non-profit organization based in Ottawa, Canada, which was one of the first to raise concerns about nanotechnology and has to a large extent framed the international discussion. Silvia Ribeiro, the group’s Latin America director, based in Mexico City, says that the organization has no links to the ITS.

….

When you analyze it, Phillips’ article is just as emotionally manipulative as the ETC Group’s communications. Including the ETC Group with the eco-anarchists in an article about terrorism and nanotechnology is equivalent to including the journal Nature with North Korea in an article about right-wing, repressive institutions framed from beginning to end to prove a somewhat elusive point.

Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director of the ETC Group who is based in Mexico City, has replied in a letter to Nature published Oct. 4, 2012, which is behind a paywall. From Ribeiro’s letter (Note: I have removed a link),

You contend that most nanotechnology researchers now acknowledge that some areas of their work raise legitimate environmental, health and safety concerns (Nature 488, 576-579; 2012). …

In 2002, scientists could point us to only one peer-reviewed study of nanotube toxicity, and companies were still sending a Material Safety Data Sheet for graphite with carbon nanotube shipments. ETC’s concerns were dismissed as alarmist. We welcome the change in attitude.

While I’m not convinced that the reason for the scarcity of safety research was due to a huge majority of the scientific community being blind to possible health and environmental issues (perhaps there were other reasons for the lack of nanotoxicity research?) as Ribeiro implies, she does make a telling point here and elsewhere in her letter. I do find it a bit strange that this letter is behind a paywall when the article is open access; it seems like preferential treatment for one point of view and I expect better of Nature and its editors.