The lesson delivered by Peter Parker`s uncle Ben, "with great power comes great responsibility", has been taken to heart by some members of the Royal family. Unfortunately, in the case of Prince Charles, there is an increasing desire among the scientific community that he would just keep his sense of responsibility to himself.
In the past, the Royalty of England were governed by a tacit "seen and not heard" clause that encouraged them to stay out of political affairs unless public statements had been prepared for them by the government of the time. Princess Diana, the late former wife of the Prince of Wales was nonetheless outspoken in her support of AIDS awareness campaigns and the anti-landmine movement. However, her intelligent choices of causes to support have not been matched by her ex-husband`s.
In the past, his much-publicised criticism of genetic modification spurred a series of inquiries, none of which have resulted in any conclusive result to date.
The next small thing
The latest round of his decade-long tirade against technology has been delivered in the form of an attack on nanotechnology. What has got the prince`s goat this time is The Big Down, a paper released by the ETC Group that encourages careful consideration of the possible perils of nanotechnology before we launch into a global frenzy of minuscule production. While sensible caution is always advisable, the paper has been criticised by the scientific community as being "science fiction".
Prince Charles`s technophobia borders on the pathological, and his exploits range from withholding permission for his son to own a computer, to criticising the works of Copernicus and Descartes for undermining the "sanctity of the world".
Georgina Guedes, columnist, ITWeb
The report was issued in the wake of Michael Crichton`s new book Prey, which details, in authoritative-sounding technospeak, the story of a group of scientists struggling to contain a nanotechnology experiment gone horribly wrong. The resulting "grey goo" of "nanomachines" threatening the very existence of mankind has evidently taken root in the fertile minds of the masses, most notably HRH Prince of Wales`.
While the intentions of the purveyors of nanotechnology are seldom more sinister than creating self-washing windows or regenerating the enamel coating our teeth, the fear that is being expressed by these voices of dissent is that when nanomachines become self-replicating, they could spiral out of control. In the instance of such a far-fetched scenario happening, there are already stops in place; nanomachines will be built to feed only on energy sources that do not occur naturally outside of controlled production conditions, and their scientist creators will write into their makeup an expiry date beyond which they cannot replicate.
Unqualified to comment
Prince Charles`s technophobia borders on the pathological, and his exploits range from withholding permission for his son to own a computer, to criticising the works of Copernicus and Descartes for undermining the "sanctity of the world". Being questionably qualified on such matters with his degree in history, anthropology and archaeology, he has, however, requested that an inquest be carried out into the perils of nanotechnology by the Royal Society, the UK`s national academy of science.
And despite Lord May, the president of the society, stating, "there is nothing inherently sinister about nanoscience or nanotechnology, it just refers to the study of things on the scale of one-millionth of a millimetre," last month he announced the launch of the study at the Cheltenham Festival of Science.
It is unfortunate that an undemocratically appointed ruler has the clout to direct the attentions of a nation`s leading scientists and engineers, whose energies could be put to far better use in researching more pressing matters of global importance, for instance a cure for AIDS, an end to the ravages of landmines or, even, the future benefits of nanotechnology.
Share