Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Negative
Nanotechnology Negative......................................................................................................................................1
Strategy Sheet.........................................................................................................................................................4
1NC Economy Advantage Frontline (1/2)............................................................................................................5
1NC Economy Advantage Frontline (2/2)............................................................................................................6
1NC Leadership Advantage Frontline (1/2)........................................................................................................ 6
1NC Leadership Advantage Frontline (2/2)........................................................................................................ 7
1NC Warming Advantage Frontline (1/1)............................................................................................................9
1NC States CP Shell (1/1).................................................................................................................................... 10
50 States CP-Solvency Extension........................................................................................................................11
50 States CP-Solvency Extension........................................................................................................................12
1NC NNI CP Shell (1/1).......................................................................................................................................13
1NC NTI CP Shell (1/1)....................................................................................................................................... 14
1NC Patents CP Shell (1/2)..................................................................................................................................15
1NC Patents CP Shell (2/2)..................................................................................................................................16
1NC Space Wars Shell (1/3)................................................................................................................................ 17
1NC Space Wars Shell (2/3)................................................................................................................................ 18
Altmann 4, (Jurgen, cofounder of the German Research Association Science, Disarmament and International Security FONAS,
studied military uses of, first, microsystems technologies and then nanotechnology, with a view towards preventive arms control
(both at University of Dortmund, Germany).Security Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 61-79, March 2004)........................................18
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Solvency-Government Intervention................................................................................................................... 31
Economy Advantage-Lack of Consumer Information..................................................................................... 32
Economy Advantage-Hard to Determine Competitive Position......................................................................33
Economy Advantage-Hard to Determine Competitive Position......................................................................34
Economy Advantage-EHS...................................................................................................................................35
Economy Advantage-EHS...................................................................................................................................36
Economy Advantage-Small Businesses.............................................................................................................. 37
Economy Advantage-Statistics............................................................................................................................38
Economy Advantage-Globalization....................................................................................................................39
Leadership Advantage-No Leader......................................................................................................................40
Leadership Advantage-Patents and Papers.......................................................................................................41
Leadership Advantage-Patents...........................................................................................................................42
Leadership Advantage-Patents...........................................................................................................................43
Leadership Advantage-Stealing Information....................................................................................................44
Leadership Advantage-Stealing Information....................................................................................................45
Leadership Advantage-U.S. Students Move to Foreign Countries..................................................................46
Leadership Advantage-Infrastructure and Regulations.................................................................................. 47
Leadership Advantage-Regulations................................................................................................................... 48
Leadership Advantage-Regulations................................................................................................................... 49
Leadership Advantage-Government Bad.......................................................................................................... 50
Leadership Advantage-Producers Fail.............................................................................................................. 51
Nanotechnology Bad-Laundry List....................................................................................................................52
Nanotechnology Bad-Insurance Industry..........................................................................................................53
Nanotechnology Bad-Robots...............................................................................................................................54
Nanotechnology Bad-Pollutants......................................................................................................................... 55
Nanotechnology Bad-Agriculture.......................................................................................................................56
Nantechnology Bad-Environment......................................................................................................................57
Nanotechnology Bad-Aquatic Life..................................................................................................................... 58
Bipartisan Support.............................................................................................................................................. 59
Bipartisan Support.............................................................................................................................................. 60
Bipartisan Support.............................................................................................................................................. 61
Bipartisan Support.............................................................................................................................................. 62
2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Bipartisan Support.............................................................................................................................................. 63
Democrats Support..............................................................................................................................................64
Democrats Support..............................................................................................................................................65
Public Unpopular.................................................................................................................................................66
Press Influences Public........................................................................................................................................67
Press Influences Public........................................................................................................................................68
Coal Disadvantage Link......................................................................................................................................69
Coal Disadvantage Link......................................................................................................................................70
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Strategy Sheet
<3 Robbie
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
5. Their Mead in 92 evidence only takes the global market into account crossapply no internal link
6. It will be decades before nanotech can be used commercially
John F. Sargent 5 15 08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division
[Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
Basic research in nanotechnology may not translate into viable commercial . Though no formal assessment of the
composition of the NNI budget has been made, there is general consensus that the NNI investment since its inception
has been focused on basic research. The National Science Foundation defines the objective of basic research as seeking
to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study without applications in mind.20
Therefore, while basic research may underpin applied research, development, and commercialization, that is not its primary
focus or intent. In general, basic research can take decades21 to result in commercial applications, and many advances in
scientific understanding may not present commercial opportunities.
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
2. Solar power is not inevitable-The claim in the 1AC is a quote from the owner
of a solar power based company in Canada. Hes biased and doesnt take the
United States conditions into account.
3. Global warming wont lead to their impacts, and its inevitable anyway
Olaf Stampf, staff writer for Spiegel Online, 5-05-07, Not the End of the World as We Know It
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
The truth is probably somewhere between these two extremes. Climate change will undoubtedly have losers -- but it will also
have winners. There will be a reshuffling of climate zones on earth. And there is something else that we can already say with
certainty: The end of the world isn't coming any time soon. Largely unnoticed by the public, climate researchers are currently
embroiled in their own struggle over who owns the truth. While some have always seen themselves as environmental activists
aiming to shake humanity out of its complacency, others argue for a calmer and more rational approach to the unavoidable.
One member of the levelheaded camp is Hans von Storch, 57, a prominent climate researcher who is director of the Institute
for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht in northern Germany. "We have to take away people's fear of
climate change," Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent interview (more...). "Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too
much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people." Keeping a cool head is a good idea because, for one
thing, we can no longer completely prevent climate change. No matter how much governments try to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, it will only be possible to limit the rise in global temperatures to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by
the end of the century.
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Observation 1: competition
The counterplan is non-topical and competes through net-benefits.
Observation 2: Solvency
1. States can fund the plan, they provide infrastructure, facilities, and research
support
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 06/29/05,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy21950.000/hsy21950_0f.htm
As the NNAP report notes, the states are playing an increasing role in nanotechnology. In 2004, State funding for
nanotechnology-related projects was $400 million, or approximately 40 percent of the total federal investment. To date,
State funding for nanotechnology has been focused on infrastructureparticularly the construction of new facilities
with some research support being provided in the form of matching funds to public universities that receive federal
research dollars. In addition to receiving State support, universities and national laboratories also leverage federal investments
through industry contributions of funds or in-kind donations of equipment and expertise. The NNAP report lists 15 examples of
nanotechnology infrastructure investments at the State and local levels, and further details on non-federal initiatives can be
found in the recent report on a 2003 NNI workshop on regional, State, and local nanotechnology activities.
10
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
11
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
dissimilar from the historical goals of states in the area of biotechnology. None of the state nanotechnology
initiatives advocates the establishment of a state nanotechnology center to coordinate activities to foster the growth
of the industry. Rather, all of the state initiatives advocate, to some degree or another, the role of university-based
research centers and enhanced educational programs as infrastructures to reduce technical risk.15
12
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Observation 1: competition
The counterplan is non-topical and competes through net-benefits.
Observation 2: Solvency
1. The NNI solves they maintain R&D, facilitate technology and provide a
skilled workforce
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 06/29/05,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy21950.000/hsy21950_0f.htm
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a multi-agency research and development (R&D) program. The goals
of the NNI, which was initiated in 2000, are to maintain a world-class research and development program; to facilitate
technology transfer; to develop educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the infrastructure and tools to support
the advancement of nanotechnology; and to support responsible development of nanotechnology. Currently, 11 federal
agencies have ongoing programs in nanotechnology R&D; funding for those activities is shown in Table 1. Additionally, 11
other agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the Department of
Transportation, participate in the coordination and planning work associated with the NNI.
13
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Observation 1: competition
The counterplan is non-topical and competes through net-benefits.
Observation 2: Solvency
1. The Nanotechnology Initiative solves the case
Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, 10/01/03,
http://www.nano.gov/041805Initiatives.pdf
The NTI mission is as follows:
In contrast to typical academic research centers, the NTI will focus on the transfer of discoveries and intellectual
knowledge from universities to industrial partners and the promotion of rapid application and commercialization. The
NTI is governed by an oversight committee consisting of representative of each of the founding partners. BFTP/SEP is the
fiscal agent and manages the grant. A research committee oversees the R&D effort and an economic development
committee oversees the other components. Day-to-day operation is managed through the PIs, Team Leaders, and BFTP staff.
The NTI is currently a virtual model designed to be a focal point for nano-related efforts, building on the collective
strengths of corporate interests, life and materials science assets, research institutions, and economic development
organizations. The NTs innovative model incorporates a wrap-around approach, represented by alignment of six key
components:
Research and development: NTI provides a gateway to nine universities and medical schools, 41 faculty members, and
more than 100 post doctoral fellows and advanced students focused upon intelligent drug delivery systems, nanobiosensor development, nanotubular cellular probes, and nanofiber-based tissue engineering.
Entrepreneurial development and commercialization: NTI provides a single point-of-contact system that provides financing
and robust business development services and resources with uniform and steamlined IP and licensing processes.
Risk capital: NTI provides limited seed capital and strives to stimulate the creation of longer-term financial resources to
fuel the growth of the regions nanotechnology activities.
Community of interest networks: NTI fosters growth of the regions nanotechnology community by facilitating dialogue
and interaction among Federal agencies, university faculty, corporations, entrepreneurs, and economic partners.
Further, NTI takes the lead in identifying and accessing potential national and international partners.
Education and workforce development: NTI coordinates the curriculum development and implementation, high school
outreach, and faculty training for associate degree programs in nano-biotech-nology.
Economic research and policy development: NTI gathers information, assesses the regions position and opportunities,
and recommends action steps in order to guide the NTIs growth, policies, and programs.
Significant progress has been made in each of these components. For example, NTI has developed infrastructure to reduce
barriers to commercialization. This includes the NTI as the single point of contact for companies and uniform
confidentiality, intellectual property, and sponsored research agreements among the nine university partners. The NTI
research managements stress on outcomes has resulted in a disclosure rate per research dollar of seven times that of the
individual institutions. Stimulated by NTI, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is now developing an integrated state
nanotechnology strategy and has made nanotechnology one of the focal growth areas.
14
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
15
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
(PhRMA), 2006,
PhRMA submits that to show that a combination of prior art references renders a claimed invention obvious, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103(a), a challenger should have to provide evidence of either an express or an implicit motivation,
suggestion, or teaching to combine the teachings of the references in the manner alleged to render the claimed invention as a
whole obvious. Rejecting the requirement that the prior art show a motivation, suggestion, or teaching before finding a patent
claim invalid under 103 will make validity challenges unpredictable. The focus will shift from an objective analysis of what
the prior art teaches to a person having ordinary skill in the art to a subjective analysis by the judicial officer considering the
patent of *3 whether the claimed invention has sufficient merit to warrant a patent. Such an undesirable change in the law
will significantly undermine the confidence of innovators such as PhRMA members in their ability to enforce patents
against free-riding infringers who use the fruits of research and clinical-testing efforts of PhRMA members without
incurring the costly expenses associated with developing, testing, and obtaining approval of new drug products. Hence,
PhRMA members have a strong interest in preserving an obviousness standard that promotes predictability and
uniformity in the obviousness analysis, to preserve the patent system as a strong economic driving force for highly
beneficial, yet expensive, research and development efforts.
16
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
17
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
18
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
19
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
20
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
21
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
22
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
23
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
24
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
25
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
26
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Inherency-Funding Now
Currently extensive funding for nano technology
S. Baker and A. Aston, The business of nanotech, staff writers, Business Week,
pp. 66-67, Feb. 14, 2005. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_07/b3920001_mz001.htm
For entrepreneurs, nano spells funding. Venture capitalists have invested $1 billion in nano companies, nearly half of it
in the past two years. Meanwhile, government funding is holding steady at $4.7 billion annually, nearly equally divided
among Asia, Europe, and North America. The cash is pouring into university labs and new nano corridors from Albany to
Shanghai and Fukuoka prefecture in Japan. "Any professor with his head screwed on has moved research programs into nano,"
says Greg Blonder, a partner at Morgenthaler Ventures.
27
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Solvency-Companies Relocate
Alternative indicators are not accurate-companies relocating prove
John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division,
05/18/08, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
In the absence of such data, assessments of nanotechnology depend largely on alternative indicators, such as inputs (e.g.,
public and private investments) and noneconomic outputs (e.g., scientific papers, patents). By these measures, the United States
appears to lead all other nations in nanotechnology, though the U.S. lead in this field may not be as large as it has been in
previous emerging technology areas.
This is due to increased investments and capabilities of many nations based on recognition that technological leadership and
commercialization are primary paths to increased economic growth, improved standards of living, and job creation.
Nevertheless, these alternative indicators may not present an accurate view of technological leadership and economic
competitiveness for many reasons. Nor does national technological leadership alone guarantee that the economic value
produced by nanotechnology innovations will be captured within a nations borders. In todays global economy,
companies have the option of locating work e.g. research, development, design, engineering, manufacturing, product
support where it can be done most effectively.
28
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Solvency-Laundry List
The United States must do 4 four things that the aff cant solve for
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 06/29/05,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy21950.000/hsy21950_0f.htm
What can the U.S. do to maintain and, moreover, extend leadership in nanotechnology? I see five key actions. First, the
U.S. must grow federal funding for nanotechnology research. Nanotech is a horizontal enabler most similar to assembly
line manufacturing or to electricity that will impact virtually every manufactured good. It is as critical for us to lead in this field
now as it was to lead in packet switched networks decades ago, far before the Internet stimulated economic development.
Second, we must eliminate regulatory uncertainty surrounding environmental, health, and safety issues in
nanotechnology. There are no firm guidelines from the EPA or OSHA today about how those agencies plan to regulate
nanomaterials, and as a result, large corporations are beginning to hold back investment, for fear that the ground will
shift underneath them.
Third, we must attract U.S. students to the physical sciences, but as well, we must retain the foreign students that we
import. Nobel laureate Richard Smalley has observed that on current trends, by 2010, 90 percent of physical scientists
worldwide will be Asian nationals, 60 percent will be practicing in Asia. The U.S. should strengthen science education in
K-12, reconsider the effect of visa tightening on the inflow of foreign science and technology students, and develop economic
incentives to retain those researchers when they study here. Quite frankly, we risk becoming a drive-through educational
institution for other countries' students.
Fourth, we must create financial incentives aligned with desirable applications. Such programs can be coordinated through
existing agencies. They require no incremental bureaucracy. Consider NASA's $11 million project with Rice University to
develop extremely low loss power cables based on carbon nanotubes.
And finally, we must be sensible about export controls in nanotechnology, which could choke commercialization.
Export controls in this field, per se, are a dead end. The field is too broad to implement them. Such action would be like
trying to impose controls on assembly line manufacturing techniques and equipment. Instead, we believe the U.S.
should identify specific nanotech applications with military significance, like nanoparticulate explosives, and impose
sensible controls on them within existing frameworks.
29
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Solvency-Government Intervention
Government intervention makes nanotech development inefficient
John F. Sargent 5 15 08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division
[Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
Some support a more limited federal role. Some who hold this view maintain that the market, free from government
interventions, is most efficient. They assert that federal efforts can create market distortions and result in the federal
government picking winners and losers among technologies, companies, and industries. Others oppose federal
support for industrial research and applications, labeling such efforts corporate welfare. Still others argue for a
moratorium on nanotechnology R&D until environmental, health, and safety concerns are addressed.
30
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Solvency-Government Intervention
Government influence in nanotech development makes it inefficient
John F. Sargent 5 15 08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division
[Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
Libertarians generally assert that markets, free from government interventions, are the most effective mechanism for allocating
resources to the most promising opportunities. In their view, government interventions represent an industrial policy in
which the preferences of politicians and bureaucrats are substituted for market forces and/or objective criteria. When
the federal government provides direct and/or indirect financial support to a particular technology,59 assert these
advocates, it may not only provide a direct benefit to the technology especially with respect to existing technology or
alternatives but it may also signal technology developers and investors that the technology may receive future
preferential treatment by government as well. This may, as a result, skew corporate development activities and private
investments toward less-promising directions producing more costly and/or less beneficial results.
31
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
32
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
33
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
34
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Economy Advantage-EHS
Nanotech development will not be effective without government regulations
John F. Sargent 5 15 08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division
[Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
Many advocates in industry, academia, and environmental non-governmental organizations believe the federal
government should increase its EHS R&D investments to reduce uncertainty, inform the development of regulations,
and protect the public. Regulation of nanotechnology products may fall under the authorities of several federal
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
35
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Economy Advantage-EHS
EHS concerns prevent nanotech commercialization and competitiveness
John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division,
05/18/08, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
Environmental, health, and safety (EHS) concerns also present potential barriers to nanotechnology commercialization
and U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology.
The properties of nanoscale materials e.g., small size; high surface area-to-volume ratio; unique chemical, electric,
optical, and biological characteristics that have given rise to great hopes for beneficial applications have also given rise
to concerns about their potential implications for health, safety, and the environment. EHS issues have become a
specific concern of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. In FY2008, the NNI will spend $58.6 million on EHS research,
accounting for about 3.9% of NNI funding. President Bush has requested $76.4 million for NNI EHS research in FY2009, or
5.0% of NNI funding. Some believe that these funding levels are too low and should amount to 10% or more of NNI funding.
The potential for adverse effects on health, safety, and the environment may discourage investment in, and development
of, nanotechnology resulting from the possibility of regulations that bar products from the market or impose excessive
regulatory compliance costs, and the potential for costly product liability claims and clean-up costs. If U.S. regulations
are restrictive and expensive, companies may move nanotechnology research, development, and production to nations
that do not impose or enforce regulations, or take a less stringent approach to regulation. Many advocates in industry,
academia, and environmental non-governmental organizations believe the federal government should increase its EHS R&D
investments to reduce uncertainty, inform the development of regulations, and protect the public. Regulation of nanotechnology
products may fall under the authorities of several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and
Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. (For
additional information, see CRS Report RL34332, Engineered Nanoscale Materials and Derivative Products: Regulatory
Challenges, and CRS Report RL34118, The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges, both
by Linda-Jo Schierow.)
36
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
37
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Economy Advantage-Statistics
No need to be concerned about nanotech competitiveness- the statistics are
flawed
John F. Sargent 5 15 08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division
[Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
Comparisons of aggregate national data may be misleading. For example, a small nation with limited resources may be
unable to pursue leading-edge research across a broad spectrum of nanotechnology-related disciplines and applications,
and instead opt to seek technological dominance in a discreet area by investing in a limited set of disciplines and applications
(or even a single one). In such a case, that country may become the strongest competitor in a given area, while analysis of
aggregate numbers might obscure this strength. Alternatively, a rapidly developing nation may invest substantial
capital in nanotechnology research, but lack key elements such as a strong scientific and technological infrastructure;
matureindustry, service, and private capital infrastructure; experienced scientists, engineers, managers, and entrepreneurs;
and/or a market-oriented business climate needed to fully capitalize on such an investment.
38
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Economy Advantage-Globalization
National competitiveness over nanotech does not exist due to globalization
John F. Sargent 5 15 08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division
[Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
In addition, the concept of a national competitive position may differ from the past as a result of increased globalization
of research, technical talent, and production. For example, the worlds leading-edge research in a field of nanotechnology
might be conducted at an American university, by Chinese students, supported by research funds from a German-based
corporation, with engineering underway in Russia, plans to manufacture in Taiwan, shipping by Greek-flagged vessels, and
technical support provided online and by telephone from India. In such an example, the global distribution of knowledge
workers, investors, and producers make the determination of national competitiveness more difficult.
39
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
40
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
41
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Leadership Advantage-Patents
Patents serve as the major barrier to fuel cell production
Raj Bawa, PhD May 18, 2004 Nanotechnology Patents and Challenges
Since nanotechnology by definition covers a broad class of materials and systems, searching for nanotechnology-related
patents and publications is complicated relative to other technology areas. At present, global patent classification systems
are neither sufficiently defined nor descriptive enough to accommodate many of the unique properties that
nanotechnology inventions exhibit. There is no formal classification scheme for US nanotechnology patents.
Additionally, the PTO lacks effective automation tools for nanotechnology prior art searching.
42
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Leadership Advantage-Patents
It is very difficult to obtain patents for nanotech
Scott Valentine on August 07, 2007 Red canary. Nanotech: big legal hurdles http://www.redcanary.ca/view/nanotechbig-legal
Nanotechnology is one of the fastest growing segments of emerging tech. But, like many cutting-edge sectors, the legal
guidelines for doing business in nanotech are still being sorted out.Brad Limpert, a partner with Gowlings LLP, talked to
Red Canary about the legal pitfalls and potential of playing in the nanotech business. Red Canary What are some of the
common challenges that companies in the nanotech sector face today? Brad Limpert The most common legal issues are
around intellectual property and regulatory requirements. Often, developments in nanotech are about creating a
smaller version of pre-existing products, so there is a higher than average chance to infringe on patent rights. The way
companies use new science and engineering in nanotech often results in the discovery of new characteristics of materials, but
the original patent on the parent material may remain intact. The nature of the industry is such that a lot of joint creation
and collaboration goes on. That can create issues around IP and who owns what. It can be cumbersome from a legal
perspective and suck value from your company if these issues arent properly addressed.
43
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
44
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
45
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
46
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
47
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Leadership Advantage-Regulations
There is no current body monitoring potential dangerous effects of nanotech
Glenn McGee. 2007. Glenn McGee is the director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical
College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics.Director of the Alden March
Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics. greener
world. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/53736/
What is troubling here is that nanotechnology, being embraced the world over as the panacea for all that ails the way our
materials work or our drugs react in the body, is being utilized in ways that at the very least could be described as reckless or, at
the worst, harmful to the public perception and the progress of these technologies. The long-term implications of releasing ZVI
into the oceans are not known. How will the currents carry these particles? How long and to what effect will the iron affect
plankton plumes? What kind of warnings do we put on the houses of people living with paints with nanoparticles in them or
whose walls of their homes are made of nanocomposites? Could these nanocomposites become the asbestos or lead for the 21st
century? What is also troubling is that there is no single body or organization responsible for monitoring
nanotechnologies in any given arena - public health, environmental health, or other areas. We have no idea what the
standards for risk assessment in these arenas should be. No single group governs or determines this, nor is there
consensus.
48
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Leadership Advantage-Regulations
Currently a lack of government regulations for nanotech
John Kerry. 04/24/2008. Senator of Massachusetts. Kerry Urges Funding for Nanotechnology Environmental Safety
Research. http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=296734
We also have a responsibility to make sure were dedicating sufficient resources toward researching the environmental health
and safety (EHS) impacts of these particles. The Chairman of this Committee asked for a GAO report to assess just how much
of a priority is being placed on EHS research across the 25 agencies that administer the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
GAOs response is troubling. In 2006, just 3 percent of the $1.3 billion designated for the National Nanotechnology Initiative
was used to further EHS research. Even this statistic is misleading, because according to the Comptroller General, the
agencies are using a faulty reporting structure and are not receiving appropriate guidance for how to apportion funding
across multiple topics. Funding for EHS research will be a top priority as we move forward with this reauthorization
process. Weve got to ensure that we have a well coordinated, well funded, government-wide approach to performing
the type of research that will tell us whether these particles are safe to work around, whether theyre safe for the
environment, and whether theyre safe for consumers once they reach the shelves. Its critical that we do the research up
front, so were not asking what went wrong a hundred years from now.
49
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
50
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
51
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
52
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
53
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Bad-Robots
Companies are biased and ignore negative nanotech
M.H.A. Hassan, Small things and big changes in the developing world, Science, vol. 309, pp. 65-66, July 1, 2005.
One may note that the initial estimates for infotechnology significantly under-evaluated its longterm positive
implications (because of successive and non-scalable qualitative changes) and over-evaluated several negative effects
(beginning with the risk of macroscale robots that would take over the world). By envisioning the potential synergism of
many fields contributing to nanotechnology and various phases of its introduction, a similar scenario would be possible
at an even more pronounced scale.
54
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Bad-Pollutants
Nanotech harms atmosphere more than current pollutants
ScienceDaily (Apr. 12, 2008) Nanotechnology In The Environment: Making Sure Wonder Materials Don't Become
Wonder Pollutants. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408132129.htm
Plata found that the ten different carbon nanotubes had vastly different compositions; most previous toxicity studies have
generally assumed that all nanotubes are the same. This diversity of chemical signatures will make it harder to trace the impacts
of carbon nanotubes in the environment. In previous work (first presented last fall), Plata and colleagues found that the
process of nanotube manufacturing produced emissions of at least 15 aromatic hydrocarbons, including four different
kinds of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) similar to those found in cigarette smoke and automobile
tailpipe emissions.
They also found that the process was largely inefficient: much of the raw carbon went unconsumed and was vented into
the atmosphere. The new research by Plata et al was published April 3 on the web site of the journal Nanotechnology.
55
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Bad-Agriculture
Nanotech damages plants and prevents seedling growth
Michael Berger.staff writer. Nanowerk July 9, 2008. http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6331.php
Nanoparticles with at least one dimension of 100 nanometers or less fall in the transitional zone between individual
atoms or molecules and the corresponding bulk material, which can drastically modify the physicochemical properties of
the material and may generate adverse biological effects in organisms. As the discussion about potentially undesired side
effects of engineered nanoparticles heats up, research on toxicological effects of nanomaterials gets increasing attention.
Nanotoxicology is quickly being established as a new field, with its major focus on human and animal studies. However, very
few studies have been conducted to assess the toxicity of nanomaterials to ecological terrestrial species, particularly plants. So
far, the mechanisms of nanoparticle phytotoxicity the ability to cause injury to plants remain largely unknown and little
information on the potential uptake of nanoparticles by plants and their subsequent fate within the food chain is available. One
material that is of great interest to nanotoxicologists is zinc oxide (ZnO). ZnO nanoparticles are being used in personal care
products (e.g. sunscreen lotions) and coatings and paints on the account of their UV absorption and transparency to visible
light. Acute toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles has been observed in bacteria. Another study also showed phytotoxicity of ZnO
nanoparticles (see our Nanowerk Spotlight: "Nanoparticles could have a negative effect on plant growth "). However, the
experiments performed in this study took place in Petri dishes to examine the inhibition of ZnO nanoparticles on seedling root
elongation; plant uptake and rhizosphere dissolution of the ZnO were not investigated. In a follow-up study, the scientists used
a hydroponic culture system to examine plant cell internalization and possible upward translocation of ZnO nanoparticles. The
dissolution of ZnO nanoparticles and its contribution to the phytotoxicity were also investigated. Ryegrass (Lolium perenne)
was used as a model plant for its wide distribution and common use in phytotoxicity study" Our research revealed that ZnO
nanoparticles at certain concentrations could adsorb onto ryegrass root surface, damage root tissues, enter root cells,
and inhibit seedling growth" Dr. Baoshan Xing tells Nanowerk. "We also found that the phytotoxicity of ZnO nanoparticles
could not primarily come from their dissolution in the bulk nutrient solution or the rhizosphere.
56
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nantechnology Bad-Environment
Nanotech inherently toxic for wildlife
Safe Nano. 07/03/2008. Nanoparticles affect pollutant toxicity. http://www.safenano.org/SingleNews.aspx?NewsId=350
A study into the toxicity of C60 nanoparticles by researchers at the Technical University of Denmark and the University of
Copenhagen, Denmark has further indicated that pollutant toxicity is affected by particle size. Carbon based organic
chemicals are known to affect toxicity of pollutants to plant and animal life. However, nanoparticles like C60 have the
altered properties compared to their larger counterparts and thus their unique standing may mean they have a very
different effect on the toxicity and availability of pollutant molecules. In addition, the nanoparticles themselves may also
be inherently toxic.
57
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
58
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Bipartisan Support
Nanotech is bi-partisan
The Technology Administration. November 30, 2003. Bond Praises Passage of Historic Nanotech Legislation
http://www.technology.gov/PRel/pr031120.htm
Like many technology issues, nanotechnology enjoys tremendous bi-partisan support, continued Bond. Senators
George Allen (R-VA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Representative Mike Honda (DCA) deserve much credit for their perseverance, leadership and dedication to this important innovation issue.
59
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Bipartisan Support
Nanotech has bi-partisan support
Committee on Science and Technology. 12-19-2005. Remarks by the Hon. Mike Honda on
the Release of the White Paper of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on
Nanotechnology. http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1020
It isnt a partisan issue nanotech also fits in well with the bipartisan legislation based on the National Innovation
Initiative that Senators Ensign and Lieberman recently introduced, and it also dovetails with the Summit on Innovation held by
Chairmen Boehlert, Wolf, and Ehlers this month. Know that Congress IS paying attention.The Science Committee held three
hearings on nanotech this year: In May we heard testimony about the challenges facing companies, universities, and national
labs that are trying to commercialize nanotechnology.
60
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Bipartisan Support
Congressional support for nanotech is bipartisan
Scott E. Rickert. 12-6-06 Chief executive of Nanofilm, Ltd, located in Valley View, Ohio. Taking The NanoPulse -Nanotechnology In 2007 -- No Ostriches Allowed. http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=13166
I've been vocal in my support an open sharing of information to expedite environmental, health and safety research and the
development of reasonable standards. I joined a session of the Environmental Protection Agency's Nanotechnology Work
Group, which was charged with leading the discussion on nanotechnology regulation. I've also met with various publications
and foundations on the topic. I was heartened to see that in a bi-partisan statement, the House Science Committee is
urging the Bush Administration and key federal agencies to "quickly put together a plan and a budget to implement
recommendations" put forward in a report by concerned scientists. I couldn't agree more.
61
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Bipartisan Support
The NNI shares strong bipartisan support
John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division,
05/18/08, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
The federal government has played a central role in catalyzing U.S. R&D efforts. In 2000, President Clinton launched the U.S.
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the worlds first integrated national effort focused on nanotechnology. The NNI has
enjoyed strong, bipartisan support from the executive branch, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Each year,
the President has proposed increased funding for federal nanotechnology R&D, and each year Congress has provided
additional funding. Since the inception of the NNI, Congress has appropriated a total of $8.4 billion for nanotechnology R&D
intended to foster continued U.S. technological leadership and to support the technologys development, with the long-term
goals of: creating high-wage jobs, economic growth, and wealth creation; addressing critical national needs; renewing U.S.
manufacturing leadership; and improving health, the environment, and the overall quality of life.
62
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Bipartisan Support
Nanotech is bipartisan
Committee on Science and Technology. 12-19-2005. Remarks by the Hon. Mike Honda on the Release of the White Paper
of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Nanotechnology. http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1020
Let me assure you that on the Congressional side, nanotechnology has remained a priority throughout this year that you
have been working on this report. Some of you that are here today were with us last week when I held a forum on innovation
with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Zoe Lofgren. We had folks talk about a number of things that we need to do to
make sure that America continues to lead the world in innovation. One of the topics discussed that day was nanotechnology.
As a growing field where global leadership is still up for grabs, nanotech fits in well with the Innovation Agenda that
Democrats announced last month, which is a strategy for keeping the US competitive in the global economy.
63
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Democrats Support
Democrats support nanotech despite republican opposition
TODAY News Update - 5/1/2008 Democrats Drop Bid To Bolster Nanotech Study Funds
Amid GOP Resistance
Facing Republican and White House opposition, Democrats have dropped plans to mandate a funding increase for
research into the environmental, health and safety (EHS) risks of nanotechnology, which the Democrats had hoped to
include in a pending bill to reauthorize nanotechnology research funding, sources say.
64
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Democrats Support
Nanotech popular for democrats
TODAY News Update - 3/28/2008 Democrats Eye Risk Research Funding Boost In Nano Reauthorization Bill
Democrats are drafting legislation that would significantly boost spending to research the environmental, health and
safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology, and would also appoint what one environmentalist describes as a
cheerleader in the presidents office to lobby across the administration for future nanotech research funds.
65
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Public Unpopular
Nanotech is unpopular with the public
Sharon M. Friedman Winter 2005. Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media Professor and Director of the Science &
Environmental Writing Program in the Department of Journalism & Communication, Lehigh University.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/44/33181/01563496.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1563496
Another major concern almost from the birth of nanotechnology among U.S. scientists and government officials has
been fear that some members of the public would react to nanotechnology in the same way many reacted to genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) [20], [24]. Anti-GMO sentiments are particularly strong in Europe, affecting sales of GMO
products and blackening reputations of companies associated with the technology [8], [15]. Indeed, some environmental groups
active in the GMO debate, particularly the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), have turned
their scrutiny to nanotech. Concerned about the nanotechs potential societal and health impacts, the ETC Group called
for a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in any new commercial products until
governments adopt "best practices" for research [6].
66
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
67
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
68
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
69
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
70