On the Assembly of Things

Here’s another standards-related issue following on the issue of “functional composibility” we’ve already raised. For years now, I’ve been hearing the nano-concerned discuss the issue of whether nanomaterials like nanotubes, which are made of pure carbon, are the same thing as something like graphite, also made of pure carbon. Obviously, the answer is no, since graphite is good for pencils and nanotubes can apparently Do Anything(tm). However, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Substances control Act, in its current form, would treat them as identical. Here, then, is a good place to focus on not only issues of substance (what is it?) but issues of mode: what is it for, what is it expected to do. TSCA is written only to deal with the former, and this may, or may not, reflect a scientific consensus as to how to treat objects, or it may reflect political expediency.

In any case, this blog post from Richard Denison at Environmental Defense finally raises an issue that I have informally raised with colleagues over and over again: why focus on only nano and its difference, when all chemicals on the list should probably be treated with respect to mode as well as to substance. Perhaps this is what is nagging me about SynBio objects as well, in that the attempt to define a standard is focused on the substance of the thing and not its mode. (Substance and mode might not be the right terms here… been reading Spinoza).

Tags: No Comments