You are on page 1of 69

Nanotechnology Neg

DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Nanotechnology Negative

Nanotechnology Negative.....................................................1
Strategy Sheet........................................................................3
1NC Economy Advantage Frontline (1/2)............................4
1NC Economy Advantage Frontline (2/2)............................5
1NC Leadership Advantage Frontline (1/2)..........................6
1NC Leadership Advantage Frontline (2/2)..........................7
1NC Warming Advantage Frontline (1/1).............................8
1NC States CP Shell (1/1).....................................................9
50 States CP-Solvency Extension.......................................10
50 States CP-Solvency Extension.......................................11
1NC NNI CP Shell (1/1)......................................................12
1NC NTI CP Shell (1/1)......................................................13
1NC Patents CP Shell (1/2).................................................14
1NC Patents CP Shell (2/2).................................................15
1NC Space Wars Shell (1/3)................................................16
1NC Space Wars Shell (2/3)................................................17
1NC Space Wars Shell (3/3)................................................18
Space Wars-Uniqueness Extension.....................................19
Space Wars-Internal Link Extension...................................20
Space Wars-Won’t Solve Ground War...............................21
Space Wars-Space Weapons Useless..................................22
Space Wars-Economy Module (1/1)...................................23
Space Wars-Terrorism Module (1/1)...................................24
Inherency-Government Funding Now.................................25
Inherency-Funding Now......................................................26
Solvency-Companies Relocate............................................27
Solvency-Laundry List........................................................28
Solvency-Government Intervention....................................29
Solvency-Government Intervention....................................30
Economy Advantage-Lack of Consumer Information........31
Economy Advantage-Hard to Determine Competitive Position.............................................................32
Economy Advantage-Hard to Determine Competitive Position.............................................................33
Economy Advantage-EHS...................................................34
Economy Advantage-EHS...................................................35
Economy Advantage-Small Businesses..............................36
Economy Advantage-Statistics............................................37
Economy Advantage-Globalization....................................38
Leadership Advantage-No Leader.......................................39
Leadership Advantage-Patents and Papers..........................40
Leadership Advantage-Patents............................................41
Leadership Advantage-Patents............................................42
Leadership Advantage-Stealing Information......................43
Leadership Advantage-Stealing Information......................44
Leadership Advantage-U.S. Students Move to Foreign Countries.........................................................45
Leadership Advantage-Infrastructure and Regulations.......46
Leadership Advantage-Regulations.....................................47
Leadership Advantage-Regulations.....................................48
Leadership Advantage-Government Bad............................49
Leadership Advantage-Producers Fail................................50
Nanotechnology Bad-Laundry List.....................................51
Nanotechnology Bad-Insurance Industry............................52
Nanotechnology Bad-Robots...............................................53
1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah
Nanotechnology Bad-Pollutants..........................................54
Nanotechnology Bad-Agriculture.......................................55
Nantechnology Bad-Environment.......................................56
Nanotechnology Bad-Aquatic Life......................................57
Bipartisan Support...............................................................58
Bipartisan Support...............................................................59
Bipartisan Support...............................................................60
Bipartisan Support...............................................................61
Bipartisan Support...............................................................62
Democrats Support..............................................................63
Democrats Support..............................................................64
Public Unpopular.................................................................65
Press Influences Public........................................................66
Press Influences Public........................................................67
Coal Disadvantage Link......................................................68
Coal Disadvantage Link......................................................69

2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Strategy Sheet

Here’s their plan text:


Plan: The United States federal government should provide tax credits to companies which develop
nanotechnology-based solar power.

Don’t go for Nanotechnology bad unless you prove it’s not inevitable because
they’ll argue that a global race for nanotechnology innovation and leadership
makes it inevitable in the SQ and that the plan would solve it back through
regulations.

We suggest going for the advantage frontlines, any kind of DA that links to
coal and etc, politics, and a counter plan (shells are provided in the file). In the
block have one speech blow up on case (i.e. Nanotech will never
commercialize, impossible to regulate, and a bunch of defense) and the other
take the two DAs. Or have one speech go for the CP and DA and the other take
nanotech will never commercialize, hegemony defense, and warming defense.

Don’t be fooled by their USFG key cards, none of them give real reasons why
USFG compared to any other actor is better. Most of their cards just say the
USFG should fund for X but never give reasons why. And a lot of their cards
don’t even apply to their plan because they talk about USFG directly funding.
Only one card talks about tax credits.

If you really want to go for Nanotech bad or the DA. Read cards and create
barriers that make it impossible for SQ to solve without the plan removing
them.

<3 Robbie

3
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Economy Advantage Frontline (1/2)


1. No internal link to U.S. economy key to world economy

2. Goodness gracious you Nanotechnology will never commercialize-21 reasons


Ronald D. McNeil Ph.D., Jung Lowe, J. D., Ted Mastroianni, MPA, Joseph Cronin, Ed. D., Dyanne Ferk, Ph. D., Dean and
Professor of Business Management University of Illinois – Springfield, Distinguished Fellow College of Business and
Management University of Illinois – Springfield, Consultant to University of Illinois – Springfield, Edvisors Boston,
Massachusetts, Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Business Management University of Illinois – Springfield, 09/07,
http://www.ntis.gov/pdf/Report-BarriersNanotechnologyCommercialization.pdf

1. Time between research and commercialization is estimated to be 3 to 10 years. Venture capitalists and other sources
of funding find this time factor to be a detriment.
2. The so-called “Valley of Death” is the often fatal interlude between scientific results of the researcher and initial
funding for proto-typing and commercialization. The scientists may publish results and not be interested in
commercialization. As often happens, where there is interest or not in commercialization, the common comment is that for
every dollar invested into basic research, which is critical to the U.S.’s competitive strength, almost one hundred dollars is
required for a competitive product to be produced. The commercialization of nanotechnology scientific investment has little
relationship to the hi-tech dot.com, software commercialization paradigm. This is a serious gap between research and
commercialization that must be addressed by government agencies and the venture capitalists.
3. Lack of proper infrastructure (labs, equipment, measuring devices, etc.) hinders the growth of small business and
researchers. The infrastructure needed is very expensive. Furthermore, equipment becomes quickly outdated due to the
major advances in technology.
4. Lack of usage of federal and university laboratories and equipment hurts small businesses that can’t afford this
infrastructure.
5. Many of the employees or scientists are foreign nationals. They are not allowed access to federal labs in most cases.
6. Small businesses do not have the capacity to produce products at a large scale.
7. There is a lack of a coherent policy on tech transfer from universities to start-up businesses.
8. Audit control from federal government is a hindrance to small companies. It is very expensive to slow down work to
comply with several federal agencies that conduct audits. There needs to be a centralized system.
9. Patent office takes up to 36 months to respond to applications registered.
10. Potential barriers may include the lack of trained scientists, engineers, technicians and researchers in this country.
There is no federal policy addressing the deficit in scientific training at all levels of our educational institutions and in
improving the workforce with better and improved technical skills.
11. The current tax policy does not assist research and development. There are not enough sufficient tax credits for funding
groups.
12. FDA and Patent offices do not have enough qualified staff to assess nanotechnology products.
13. The development of nano tools must increase and be more available to universities and startup businesses.
14. SBIR encourages research and not commercialization. It does not support small companies.
15. Applied research needs to be encouraged more in universities and federal labs.
16. The public perception that nanotechnology products are unsafe must be challenged to insure the public fully
understands its potential.
17. Lack of standards and measurements are hindering advancements in nanotechnology.
18. The reduction of research and development funding has been hindering advancement in research.
19. Current immigration policy is adversely affecting research. U.S. - educated foreign nationals are going back to their
home countries because of the difficulty of going through the process to stay in the United States.
20. It is also difficult for an individual to obtain a visa to enter the United States.
21. National assistance for nano technology development in foreign countries is more effective than in the United States.
It will be a problem for competitiveness.
22. Some academics and researchers fight efforts for commercialization.

4
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Economy Advantage Frontline (2/2)


3. Even if the United States lost it’s leadership international competitiveness
between many countries would keep the world economy healthy-that’s 1AC’s
Salvi 08

4. Limited access to patents is what discourages commercial development of


nanotechnology
Alexander E. Braun, Senior Editor 11/19/2007 -- Semiconductor International, Nanoconductors Facing Patents
Labrynth 3:54:00 AM http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6503878.html

Nanotechnology is advancing at a dizzying rate, but profitable commercialization is being hindered by looming legal
issues, as uneven worldwide patent enforcement is forcing companies to resort to trade secrets to protect their hard-
won nanotechnology innovations.A panel of industry experts at the recent NanoCon International conference in Santa Clara,
Calif., considered several hurdles — ranging from legal considerations to scalability and cost — facing nanomaterials
manufacturing.“For nanotech to become a true industry, it must consistently deliver application-tailored quality material in
sufficiently large qualities — whether kilogram or kiloton,” said Dave Arthur, CEO of SouthWest Nanotechnologies (SWeNT,
Norman, Okla.). “Many potential customers won’t begin product development unless they know that we’ll be able to
provide material at those kinds of scales.” Then there is cost. Although nanotech materials deliver high value at small
quantities, not many applications can support costs of thousands or even hundreds of dollars per gram. The processes
that produce these materials must become more scalable. Manufacturing scalability to a great extent is a matter of
achieving sufficiently uniform heat and mass transfer in processes, but there exists a chicken-and-egg situation regarding the
needed investment to attain this. “In an academic setting, nanomanufacturing means making one or two,” said Professor Joey
Mead, deputy director of the Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing of the Department of Plastics Engineering at the
University of Massachusetts Lowell, which is part of the National Science Foundation's Nanoscale Science and Engineering
organization. “If you toss 99 to get a good one and can publish results, that’s sufficient; not so for commercial manufacturing.
For that you must really understand the manufacturing fundamentals to enable industry to develop them for large-scale
manufacturing.” Panel moderator Kelly Kordzik, an intellectual property lawyer at Fish & Richardson P.C. (Austin, Texas),
said some patents lie dormant like monsters out of an old Japanese sci-fi thriller, waiting to be awakened to wreak havoc.
“When the technology was getting started,” he said, “broad and fundamental patents were filed by both universities and
companies.” Since presently there is not enough profit to be had in nanotech patents, there has been no appreciable litigation to
entangle development or frighten away venture capitalists. However, there is an unholy race between nanotech’s progress
toward high-volume commercialization, and these older patents’ expiration dates. When valuable applications start
breaking en masse into the commercial world, making significant profits, many expect that these patent holders will
attempt to enforce them, possibly leading to complex and paralyzing patent fights.

5. Their Mead in 92 evidence only takes the global market into account cross-
apply 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.

5
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Leadership Advantage Frontline (1/2)


1. It is impossible to regulate nanotechnology on a global scale
David Forrest, "Law, Technology, and Public Policy," 04/23/89,
http://www.foresight.org/nano/Forrest1989.html
It is worth considering the possibility of simply banning nanotechnology altogether, in which case we would avoid the need to
expend further effort on technology policy questions. There will be enormous pressures to develop nanotechnology because of
the potential benefits to society, as well as the threat of others gaining military superiority should they develop it first. It does
not seem likely that all nations would agree to ban development. Even if they did, verification would be nearly impossible
because research efforts could be easily hidden in small laboratories. And because of the multi-disciplinary nature of
nanotechnology, one would have to ban a large fraction of scientific research because so many areas will impact on
developing nanotechnology, e.g.—scanning tunneling microscopes or computational chemistry. So it seems unlikely that
we could implement a verifiable worldwide ban.
If we tried to block or slow the development of nanotechnology in the United States, or in other democracies, we would
increase the chances that nanotechnology is first developed in a country without a free press. In which case we could not
be certain that that country would not use nanotechnology to oppress its neighbors or the rest of the world. So efforts to
slow progress only serve to threaten our own freedom.

2. Nanotech cannot solve heg- doesn’t increase


John Robert Marlow, 2004, Interview on the Superswarm Option Nanotechnology Now, February,
http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm

Lastly, there are the proposed prohibition on self-replication in open environments, the proposed restriction on self-
evolution, and the requirement that replicating nanites be dependent upon one of three things: a) an artificial energy
source; b) an artificial vitamin, or; c) a broadcast transmission. All of these seem quite rational at first glance-though such
restrictions would make superswarm implementation (as currently envisioned) impossible. The problem is that wars do
not take place in sealed laboratories, and no military establishment is going to pay much attention to these guidelines because
following them renders nanoweapons useless. If nanites cannot replicate on the battlefield, they will be less effective than
those which can, and become vulnerable to destruction; if they rely upon an artificial vitamin or energy source, their
battlefield usefulness is compromised or destroyed, and they will be inferior to those operating with no such hindrance;
if they depend upon a broadcast signal, that signal can be duplicated or jammed. Further, the development of such
safeguards, even if desired, would slow deployment-for which reason they're not likely to be implemented. So the military-ours
as well those of other nations-is basically going to throw this guidebook out the window. Which is not to say it doesn't have its
uses; it does. But the most likely source of a large-scale nanoevent is nanoweaponry-and the institutions developing it
are precisely those which are least likely to concern themselves with cumbersome safeguards. They are also those most
likely to be conducting research and development activities under the all-concealing cloak of national security.

3. SQ solves plan U.S. is leader now, that’s the 1AC

4. Patent thickets will stifle innovation


Michael Berger, writer for Nanowerk, 03/30/08,
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=386.php
This trend clearly shows that nanotechnology firms and researchers are racing to secure patent protection for early-
stage commercial applications but also might be trying to create license fee generating positions. As patent offices are
struggling with the soaring number of patent applications filed, nanotechnology- related patents create new challenges and
problems. One case in point is nanomedicine. According to Dr. Raj Bawa, author of a recent paper titled "Will the
nanomedicine "patent land grab" thwart commercialization?" published online on Dec. 19, 2005 in Nanomedicine:
Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, the critical role of patents to the nanomedicine

6
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Leadership Advantage Frontline (2/2)


"revolution" cannot be underestimated. "When investors in nanomedicine or pharmaceutical companies consider the
merits of a particular investment, patent issues are one of the most important items that they review" says
Bawa. "There is also ample evidence that companies, start-ups, and universities are ascribing ever greater value and importance
to patents." "For a start-up company, patents are a means of validating the company’s foundational technology to
attract investment" Bawa says. Universities are also becoming increasingly aggressive in patenting their nanotech-
related research, with the hope of generating licensing revenue in the future. In some areas, this situation has led to
what is known as "patent thicket" – an overlapping set of patent rights requiring those seeking to commercialize new
technology obtain licensees from multiple patentees. According to Bawa, such a classic patent thicket seems to be
developing in the area of carbon nanotubes. The race for nanotech patents has not only produced overlapping patents,
but has produced a flood of "unduly broad" nanopatents. "Patent thickets are considered to discourage and stifle
innovation" says Bawa. "Claims in such patent thickets have been characterized as often broad, overlapping and conflicting –
a scenario ripe for massive patent litigation battles in the future."

5. We don’t have enough scientists to maintain nanotech leadership


SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 06/29/05,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy21950.000/hsy21950_0f.htm
The U.S. is not generating enough Science and Engineering Master's degree and Ph.D. holders to maintain leadership in
nanotechnology. Tighter controls on student visas since the September 11 attacks have reduced the inflow of Ph.D.
students to the United States in favor of Western Europe, and as economies in China, India, and South Korea develop,
foreign scientists are less likely to remain in the U.S. for their careers than they were a decade ago. Nobel Laureate Richard
Smalley from Rice University has noted that at current rates, by 2010, 90 percent of all physical scientists will be Asian and
50 percent of them will be practicing in Asia.

6. Companies will develop nanotech outside of the United States because it is


more efficient
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

U.S.-based companies may conduct production and other work outside of the United States. In today’s economy, supply
chains are global and the work required to develop, design, produce, market, sell, and service products is generally
conducted where it can be done most efficiently. Even if U.S.-based companies successfully develop and bring
nanotechnology materials and products to market, work may be conducted, and the economic value captured, outside
of the United States.

7
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Warming Advantage Frontline (1/1)

1. No solvency: If we stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases today it would


take centuries for them to decline
Hillman, Mayer and Fawcett, Tina, 2007, The Suicidal Planet: How To Prevent Global Climate Catastrophe, pg. 25-26
The effects of climate change cannot quickly be reversed by reducing or even eliminating future emissions of
greenhouse gases. There are two reasons for this. First, greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere linger for decades
(in the case of relatively short-lived gases like methane), or hundreds of years (for carbon dioxide), or even thousands of
years (for the long-lived gases like per-fluorocarbons). Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are
respectively one-third and more than twice as high as those at any time over the last 650,000 years. Even if no additional
carbon dioxide were emitted from now on, atmospheric concentrations would take centuries to decline to pre-Industrial
Revolution levels. While elevated levels of greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere, additional warming will occur.

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. He’s biased and doesn’t take the
United State’s conditions into account.

3. Global warming won’t lead to their impacts, and it’s 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.

4. Double Bind-Pegg in 08 and McMonagle in 08 from the 1AC contradict each


other. Either-
McMonagle in 08 is true and countries are already converting to solar power
without the need for U.S modeling
Or Pegg in 08 is true and other countries will never convert to solar technology
without the United States killing their inevitability argument

8
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC States CP Shell (1/1)


Text: The state and federal territorial governments should

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 infrastructure—particularly 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.

2. States solve-they foster economic development, provide tax incentives and


support R&D
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 06/29/05,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy21950.000/hsy21950_0f.htm
The NNI's outreach to, and coordination with, the States should be increased. Such efforts would complement those NNI
activities already underway with various industrial sectors. The States perform a vital role in fostering economic
development through business assistance programs, tax incentives, and other means. In addition, collectively the States
are spending substantial amounts in support of nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. The NNAP members
believe that practical application of NNI-funded research results, workforce development, and other national benefits will
increase with improved federal-State coordination

9
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

50 States CP-Solvency Extension


States are currently involved in nanotech development
Mahbub Uddin1, A. Raj Chowdhury 2 August 6 – 10, 2001 INTEGRATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY INTO
THE UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING CURRICULUM http://nich.dgtu.donetsk.ua/konf/konf1/129.pdf

In the United States of America, federal and state governments, academic institutions, industry and various for profit
and non profit organizations have developed partnerships to establish nanotechnology research centers. The primary
mission of these centers is to conduct research and development in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Some
research centers also support an associated graduate program within the patron university. In addition, faculty
members in various institutions conduct and manage research programs in the areas of nanotechnology.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

50 States CP-Solvency Extension


States involved in nanotech now
Albert N. Link. June 2006 Professor Department of Economics University of North Carolina
at Greensboro BIOTECHNOLOGY CENTERS AND TECHNOLOGY–BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS The University of Kansas

At the present time, approximately 20 states have or are in the process of preparing nanotechnology initiatives. The
purpose of these state-based initiatives is to address the infrastructural needs of the state so as to provide an
environment most conducive for the development of industries that rely on nanotechnology. These initiatives are not
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

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC NNI CP Shell (1/1)


Text: The National Nanotechnology Institute should

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.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC NTI CP Shell (1/1)


Text: The Nanotechnology Initiative should

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 NT’s 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, nano-
biosensor 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 region’s nanotechnology activities.
Community of interest networks: NTI fosters growth of the region’s 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 region’s position and opportunities,
and recommends action steps in order to guide the NTI’s 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 management’s 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.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Patents CP Shell (1/2)

CP Text: The United States Supreme Court should, in a relevant test case, re-
establish the TSM test for subject-matter patentability in the area of
alternative energy.

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.

Limited access to patents is what discourages commercial development of


nanotechnology

Alexander E. Braun, Senior Editor 11/19/2007 -- Semiconductor International, Nanoconductors Facing Patents
Labrynth 3:54:00 AM http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6503878.html

Nanotechnology is advancing at a dizzying rate, but profitable commercialization is being hindered by looming legal
issues, as uneven worldwide patent enforcement is forcing companies to resort to trade secrets to protect their hard-
won nanotechnology innovations.A panel of industry experts at the recent NanoCon International conference in Santa Clara,
Calif., considered several hurdles — ranging from legal considerations to scalability and cost — facing nanomaterials
manufacturing.“For nanotech to become a true industry, it must consistently deliver application-tailored quality material in
sufficiently large qualities — whether kilogram or kiloton,” said Dave Arthur, CEO of SouthWest Nanotechnologies (SWeNT,
Norman, Okla.). “Many potential customers won’t begin product development unless they know that we’ll be able to
provide material at those kinds of scales.” Then there is cost. Although nanotech materials deliver high value at small
quantities, not many applications can support costs of thousands or even hundreds of dollars per gram. The processes
that produce these materials must become more scalable. Manufacturing scalability to a great extent is a matter of
achieving sufficiently uniform heat and mass transfer in processes, but there exists a chicken-and-egg situation regarding the
needed investment to attain this. “In an academic setting, nanomanufacturing means making one or two,” said Professor Joey
Mead, deputy director of the Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing of the Department of Plastics Engineering at the
University of Massachusetts Lowell, which is part of the National Science Foundation's Nanoscale Science and Engineering
organization. “If you toss 99 to get a good one and can publish results, that’s sufficient; not so for commercial manufacturing.
For that you must really understand the manufacturing fundamentals to enable industry to develop them for large-scale
manufacturing.” Panel moderator Kelly Kordzik, an intellectual property lawyer at Fish & Richardson P.C. (Austin, Texas),
said some patents lie dormant like monsters out of an old Japanese sci-fi thriller, waiting to be awakened to wreak havoc.
“When the technology was getting started,” he said, “broad and fundamental patents were filed by both universities and
companies.” Since presently there is not enough profit to be had in nanotech patents, there has been no appreciable litigation to
entangle development or frighten away venture capitalists. However, there is an unholy race between nanotech’s progress
toward high-volume commercialization, and these older patents’ expiration dates. When valuable applications start
breaking en masse into the commercial world, making significant profits, many expect that these patent holders will
attempt to enforce them, possibly leading to complex and paralyzing patent fights.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Patents CP Shell (2/2)


The patent system is a driving force for innovation and R&D which was
undermined by the KSR decision.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Support of Respondents (PhRMA), 2006,
Westlaw.

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.

Renewable energy innovation is key to international competitiveness.


Daniel M. Kammen et al, prof of Energy and Society with Energy Resource Group, Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10, Renewable
Energy: A Viable Choice, 12/01 [http://rael.berkeley.edu/ files/2001/Herzog-Lipman- Edwards-Kammen- RenewableEnergy-
2001.pdf]

The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many
of which are related to the energy sector. The United States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in the production of
photovoltaic systems, behind Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and behind Japan, Germany, and
Canada in the development of fuel-cell systems. Developing these industries within the United States is vital to the
country’s international competitiveness, commercial strength, and ability to provide for its own energy needs.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Space Wars Shell (1/3)


A. Uniqueness-

Countries are pushing for stricter controls on space weaponization


Robert, Free Lance Journalist, 01/14/08, http://www.onlyredheadintaiwan.com/2008/01/how-us-
may-be-encouraging-chinas-space.html
This being said, in Hegemony or Survival, he speaks at length about the United States' stances regarding the militarization of
space. Since last year's news of the Chinese testing an anti-satellite missile, this has been one of the most prominent debates
regarding China's militarization -- along with its possible forays into the realm of cyber-warfare. What's interesting is that it
seems as though, in the late 90s, China and Russia pushed for stricter controls on the militarization of space at the UN.
These resolutions were passed unanimously, with abstentions from the US and Israel, which essentially counts as a sort of soft
veto.
As noted, in mid-October it was learned that during an earlier episode of playing with fire, the world was brought
ominously close to nuclear war. Ten days later, on October 23, the UN Disarmament Committee adopted two crucial
resolutions. The first called for stronger measures to prevent the militarization of space and thereby to "avert a grave
danger for international peace and security." The second reaffirmed the 1925 Geneva Protocol "prohibiting the use of
poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare." Both passed unanimously, with two abstentions: the US and
Israel. US abstention amounts to a veto: typically, a double veto, banning the events from reporting and history. In the
mainstream media, there was no mention of these failed attempts by the rest of the world to prevent serious threats to survival.
From the UN press release:
Turning to the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/57/L.30), the representative
of the Russian Federation said that the conquest of outer space had been one of the most important historical achievements of
mankind. The importance of space technology for development was truly limitless, yet already there were plans in
existence to place weapons in orbit. That might become a reality without the necessary political will to stop the
weaponization of outer space and refrain from turning that sphere into a new area of military rivalry and conflict.
Existing norms of international space law had not fully covered its weaponization.
He recalled that in Geneva, Russia and China had submitted a joint proposal that could form the basis for an international legal
agreement. Russia had previously proposed that, even before agreement was reached, a moratorium should be introduced on
not emplacing weapons or related systems in outer space. Earlier this month, his Minister for Foreign Affairs had stated that the
country was ready to embark on new measures of openness and confidence in outer space. Today, he called on all interested
countries to join in that broad measure of confidence. Hopefully, adoption of the present text would give new impetus to
substantive discussions on military and space themes at the Disarmament Conference.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Space Wars Shell (2/3)


B. Link-

U.S. Innovation is key to space weaponization


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)

For military uses of outer space, NT (with MST) will provide many possibilities for markedly smaller
satellites, together with smaller launch vehicles. Small satellites could be used in swarms for radar,
communication or intelligence. Owing to the large effective antenna size of such a system, the target
resolution would be high; however, the total antenna and solar-cell area would determine the strength of
received or transmitted signals. Small satellites could damage or destroy other satellites – either by a
direct hit with high relative velocity or through manipulations after rendezvous and docking. NT-enabled
electromagnetic acceleration could also be used for kinetic-energy space weapons.

C. Internal Link-

Refusing to end space weaponization provokes confrontation


Robert, Free Lance Journalist, 01/14/08, http://www.onlyredheadintaiwan.com/2008/01/how-us-
may-be-encouraging-chinas-space.html
Now, I don't know the reason for these abstentions. To give the United States the benefit of the doubt, it may have been
that it saw the resolution in some way other than that it directly opposed her hegemony in space.

This doesn't seem likely, though, with a newly elected Executive whose belief it was that world peace depended on their
interpretation of Straussian philosophy -- a doctrine that often leads to an elite that believes in secrecy to protect, according to
Dr. Shadia Drury, "the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many." These neoconservative politicians and their
advisers, thus, being the superiors, are charged to protect the world and to placate everyone else with "noble lies."

This doesn't sit well with many Americans, nor does it calm many leaders in other countries. Therefore, when the
United States abstains from voting for a resolution that would ban the use of outer space for military purposes, other
countries are going to assume that they must begin a program to counteract whatever the United States must be
planning to do.
China was particularly alarmed, Steinbruner and Lewis write, by a 1998 long-range planning document of the US
Space Command outlining a new concept of global engagement," including "space-based strike capabilities" that would
allow the US to attack any country and to "deny similar capability to any other countries," another Clinton-era precursor
to the National Security Strategy of September 2002. The UN Conference on Disarmament has been deadlocked since 1998 by
China's insistence on maintaining the use of space for peaceful means and Washington's refusal to agree, alienating
many allies and creating conditions for confrontation.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

1NC Space Wars Shell (3/3)


D. Impact-

Space wars will end in nuclear warfare


Brian Weeden, Spring 08, Brian Weeden is a consultant with the Secure World Foundation
developing the technical feasibility and architecture for Space Traffi c Management,
http://www.wsichina.org/cs9_9.pdf
In the end, a space war can be “won” only in a purely tactical sense. At a strategic and global level these tactical gains
are hugely offset by the long term degradation of the space environment, perhaps even leading to the complete denial of
the use of space by any party. The consequences of conflict in space can also be illustrated through another military
scenario – nuclear warfare. Parallels can be drawn between the thousands of nuclear ICBMs poised on a hair trigger
alert and the deployment of fully developed counterspace capabilities by paranoid nations. The most serious of these
parallels is the potential for escalation and heightened tension leading to undesired actions. And while it can be argued that
nuclear weapons actually prevented large-scale conventional war, they did so at an enormous economic cost and they created
many side effects that will continue to cause problems long into the future.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Space Wars-Uniqueness Extension


There’s no race for space weaponization
Mike Moore, writer for the Acronym Institute, Spring 2008,
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd87/87mm.htm
National righteousness is not an uncommon thing. It characterizes the elites of any number of states, beginning with France, a
nation whose chief exports seem to be wine, cheese, bureaucracy and moral smugness. Britain and Germany are powerfully
righteous states, too, as are Norway and Sweden, Russia and India, Saudi Arabia and Israel, China and Japan...
However, none of these states - and that includes China - contemplates developing and deploying a unilateral space-
control capability. None of these states is attempting to design space-based weapons. None of these states seeks to
achieve military dominance of space. None of these states is intent on extending a triumphalist ethic into space. And
none of these states systematically vetoes the negotiation of a new space treaty.

1
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Space Wars-Internal Link Extension


Our development of nanotech weapons prompts others to do so
Toby Shelley, journalist at the Financial Times, 09/12/06,
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=5&idContribution=158
The military is generally at the front of the queue to play with new toys and nanotechnology is no different. The range
of potential applications is vast and, frankly, frightening. The MIT programme envisages a super soldier, a man
encased in vastly superior lightweight armour that protects, has communications systems embedded, delivers first aid,
responds to weather conditions, even provides extra-skeletal muscles. Weapons systems miniaturisation is on the agenda.
So are sensing systems in which each sensor is the size of a grain of sand.
The US National Defense University journal is already mooting a tie up between nanotechnology and genetics that
could produce ‘nanobots’ capable of identifying and attacking people with particular DNA codes (or destroying
particular materials and so sabotaging an enemy’s capability). Is this any more morally acceptable than the biological warfare
the international community outlawed decades ago?
And, of course, the suspicion that one state is researching such weapons will drive others to do so, threatening a new
arms race and a return to the Cold War notions of Mutually Assured Destruction, first strike capability and so forth.
Then, we should not think that vastly superior RFID technology will not be used by security services against those they deem
to be internal enemies.

2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Space Wars-Won’t Solve Ground War


Space weaponization won’t solve wars back here
Elhefnawy, Nader. "Four Myths About Space Power." Parameters. (Spring 2003): 124-32

A common feature of scenarios built around the "omniscient, unobstructed lethality" of an "astrocop" system is that it
will stop any tank, plane, or missile from crossing borders, effectively ending interstate war. Unfortunately, such a plan
assumes a billiard-ball model of international relations in which states are unitary, self-contained actors, an idea which appears
increasingly quaint. (The proponents of such a system, after all, often claim that interstate war is largely a thing of the past,
which raises the problem that this enormous investment is being justified through reference to a problem that is supposed to
have already disappeared.) Most of the conventional conflicts where such weapons may be effective are civil wars which
spill across borders, involving neighboring states. A better question than "How will the United States manage interstate
wars?" may be "How will the United States manage intrastate wars?" and few have had much to say on that score. The
reality is that as in the Cold War, internal and interstate conflicts are likely to feed off each other. American control of
space will not in and of itself prevent antagonisms between states from finding their expression in proxy wars. At the
same time, internal conflicts can complicate American relations with other great powers because these do have
geopolitical significance, and because they often occur along ethnic lines. If Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations"
thesis was an overstatement, it was nonetheless a factor in Russian hostility toward NATO action in the former Yugoslavia
during the 1990s.

2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Space Wars-Space Weapons Useless


Even with space dominance cheaper technology will give substantial power to
our enemies
Elhefnawy, Nader. "Four Myths About Space Power." Parameters. (Spring 2003): 124-32

Finally, it has been widely acknowledged that a power disadvantaged in satellites and space-based weapons could use a variety
of cheaper weapons and tactics to reduce American space superiority. High-flying drones can provide a partial substitute for a
shortage of adequate satellites, at least regionally. Such a capability may be less extensive, secure, or reliable in particular
respects than what the United States possesses, but it will be there nonetheless. At the same time, low-budget powers
can use a variety of techniques to attack American satellites, including hacker warfare or earth-based laser weapons
which will have advantages over the space-based variety. Earth-based weapons do not have to be as compact as systems
launched into space, and thus they can be built by a less-sophisticated enemy. They can be deployed more cheaply,
without the infrastructure required for space launch and ground control. The communications links on which they
depend are less susceptible to disruption, and they are much more accessible to those whose job it is to maintain and
resupply them. The same goes for directed-energy weapons based on ships or inside wide-bodied aircraft, which may
also have the capacity to attack US satellite-based systems.

2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Space Wars-Economy Module (1/1)


1. A space war with China will destroy American satellites
Maryann Keady, writer for newmatilda.com, 05/02/07,
http://www.newmatilda.com/2007/05/02/osama-space
The question is who would want to 'limit' US access to or use of space? Which adversary would they wish to deny 'the use of
space capabilities hostile to the United States interests'? Who would want to claim sovereignty 'over outer space or celestial
bodies'? Could it be: a) Osama bin Laden; b) Iran; c) Lindsay Lohan; or d) China?
Yes, you guessed it. And it's clear from this document that the United States and China are in one hell of a strategic
tussle. The National Space Policy is replete with hints that the Pentagon is ready to make space the 'final' frontier.
Some of this has to do with scientific advancement like the Moon having a particle, Helium-3, that can help in the future
development of nuclear fusion but mostly, it has to do with the space program of US's 'peer competitor' China, and the
so-called threat of Chinese 'asymmetrical warfare' that might possibly bring down or impede American satellites and
weapons during warfare. The idea being that the Chinese are using 'commercial' or lunar technology for military
applications in space, thus challenging US military supremacy there.

2. Loss of communication satellites tanks the American and Global economy


Brian Weeden, Spring 08, Brian Weeden is a consultant with the Secure World Foundation
developing the technical feasibility and architecture for Space Traffi c Management,
http://www.wsichina.org/cs9_9.pdf
While it is true that space power is an important foundation of overall U.S. military power, it is also true that U.S.
prowess in power is closely linked to America’s economic power and, in turn, the world’s economy as a whole. Any
permanent degradation or damage to critical space systems, such as GPS or commercial communications satellites,
would have a devastating impact on the
American economy, the global economy, and thus the economy of the very nation that brought conflict to outer space.

3. Economic collapse leads to nuclear war


Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, World
Policy Institute, 1992
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their
leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them.
But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of
people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Space Wars-Terrorism Module (1/1)


1. Nanotech bad-spurs terrorism, controls people, and kills all global trade
Nanoethics.org, 04/27/08, http://www.nanoethics.org/bad.html
No one disputes that there will be many positive benefits from nanotech, but what about the bad? Is nanotech ultimately worth
the costs, like electricity and probably nuclear energy? Or is the price too high, as in the case of asbestos and DDT?
If it is too high, we need to know now, not when it’s too late and already unleashed upon our world. (We believe that a
wholesale moratorium on nanotechnology research or products is likely to be both premature and an overreaction; but that
doesn't mean that there are no negative effects that we can work to mitigate.) Here’s a quick look at some of the negative
consequences predicted for nanotechnology:
Health: Nanoparticles have been shown to be absorbed in the livers of research animals and even cause brain damage in fish
exposed to them after just 48 hours. If they can be taken up by cells, then they can enter our food chain through bacteria and
pose a health threat like mercury in fish, pesticides in vegetables or hormones in meat. The increasingly-popular carbon
nanotube (20x stronger and lighter than steel) looks very much like an asbestos fiber – what happens if they get released into
the air? Being carbon-based, they wouldn’t set off the usual alarms in our bodies, making them difficult to detect.
Environmental: If nanomaterials really are as strong as diamonds, how decomposable or persistent are they? Will they litter
our environment further or present another disposal problem like nuclear waste or space litter? In the distant future, will self-
replicating nanobots – necessary to create the trillions of nanoassemblers needed to build any kind of product – run amok,
spreading as quickly as a virus, in the infamous “gray goo” scenario?
Privacy: As products shrink in size, eavesdropping devices too can become invisible to the naked eye and more mobile, making
it easier to invade our privacy. Small enough to plant into our bodies, mind-controlling nanodevices may be able to affect
our thoughts by manipulating brain-processes.
Terrorism: Capabilities of terrorists go hand in hand with military advances, so as weapons become more powerful and
portable, these devices can also be turned against us. Nanotech may create new, unimaginable forms of torture –
disassembling a person at the molecular level or worse. Radical groups could let loose nanodevices targeting to kill
anyone with a certain skin color or even a specific person.
Society: With all the potential abuses of nanotech, many experts advocate a strong system to regulate and monitor
nanotech developments. But because nanotech laboratories can be small and mobile, surveillance needs to be
practically everywhere – devolving a free society into a Big Brother scenario. Also, what is the impact on the economy?
If nations can make anything they want, will they lose all incentive to trade? What about morality – should we be playing
with god-like powers?

2. Space militarization creates a sense of false invulnerability making us


incapable of solving terrorism
Elhefnawy, Nader. "Four Myths About Space Power." Parameters. (Spring 2003): 124-32

The threats of Intifada and Armageddon also become the same threat when terrorists possess weapons of mass
destruction. As 11 September 2001 reminded the world, large-scale terror is a very real danger, and in addition to the other
problems they pose (from threats to investment to refugee flows) failed states are increasingly seen as sanctuaries for those
who would commit such acts. The United States is incapable of single-handedly eliminating the problem of failed states.
Indeed, managing that problem is not something that can be accomplished solely through military instruments, since the main
effort has to be preventative. When the time comes for military action, the real test is less whether planes can smart-bomb
bandits than whether ground troops can keep the peace. In fact it is possible that an extension of space power would
diminish America's ability to deal with these other problems. One way would be through the fostering of a false sense of
invulnerability: the perception will be that the United States can neglect very real problems because it has its fortress in
the sky. The sense that wars can be won swiftly from the air will enhance this by reducing the tolerance for more protracted
operations, especially when they incur casualties: the success of Desert Storm made Somalia's costs appear all the more
unacceptable.

2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Inherency-Government Funding Now


Government already funds nanotech despite dangerous risks
Aatish Salvi ‘8, Vice president of the NanoBusiness Alliance.
[“A global technology race the U.S. must win,” 2/25, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-salvi-
kimbrell25feb25,0,5524858.story]

There is no shortage of money being spent promoting the technology's applications. Investments in federally-funded
nanotechnology activities coordinated through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) totaled approximately $1.4
billion in 2007. Unfortunately, NNI's fiscal year 2007 budget earmarked less than 4% for environmental health and safety
research. Even less is being spent studying broader socioeconomic and ethical concerns, such as the displacement of
whole industries and their workers that Aatish notes nano-scale manufacturing may portend.Nanotechnology is a
commercial reality. Lux Research's 2006 Nanotechnology Report noted that more than $32 billion in products incorporating
nanotechnology were sold that year. Lux predicts that by 2014, $2.6 trillion in manufactured products will be nano products,
which amounts to 15% of total global manufacturing. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies' inventory of nano-
material consumer products lists more than 580 products currently on market shelves, including paints, coatings,
sunscreens, medical bandages, sporting goods, personal-care products, cosmetics, clothing, dietary supplements, food
packaging and light-emitting diodes used in computers, cellphones and digital cameras. Putting these nano products
into the market without assessing the potential risks is like trying to get an Apollo capsule to the moon without knowing
whether the rocket carrying it will explode on the way.

2
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.

2
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 nation’s borders. In today’s 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.

2
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Solvency-Laundry List
The United States must do 4 four things that the aff can’t 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.

2
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.

2
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.

3
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Economy Advantage-Lack of Consumer Information


Plan won’t solve lack of consumer information
News.biomedicine.org, 06/27/07, http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-3/Nanotechnology-3A-
consumers-must-be-convinced-benefits-outweigh-risks-766-1/
Washington -- There is no doubt that nanotechnology has the potential to make the world a better place, said Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies Chief Scientist Andrew Maynard. But if consumers and other stakeholders are not convinced
that the benefits outweigh the risks, many applications will not see the light of day. Likewise, if the benefits are unclear
and the risks uncertain, the products of nanotechnology will be a hard sell.
Dr. Maynards remark is in his presentation today before a public meeting of the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST). He spoke as part of a panel devoted to addressing and managing the potential health,
environmental and safety risks of nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology is turning our world upside down...It also is shaking up our understanding of what makes something harmful
and how we deal with that, according to Maynard. He described the current U.S. policy toward managing the possible health
and safety risks of nanotechnologies as approaching 21st century technologies with a 20th century mindset.
Maynard called on the federal government to develop a goal-driven risk research strategy to provide decision-makers
including regulators, industry and consumers with the scientific information they need to help develop and use
nanotechnologies as safely as possible. He suggested an international approach to this challenge based on a set of strategic
research questions developed by thirteen top scientists last year which were published in the journal Nature.

3
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Economy Advantage-Hard to Determine Competitive Position


Multiple factors make it hard to determine a country’s competitive position
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 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 world’s 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.

3
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Economy Advantage-Hard to Determine Competitive Position

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.

3
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.

3
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.)

3
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Economy Advantage-Small Businesses


Small businesses cannot bring nanotech to market even with federal funding
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

Small businesses may lack the resources needed to bring their nanotechnology innovations to market. Federal programs,
such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
program, support leading-edge nanotechnology research by small innovative firms. Federally funded university research can
produce small start-up ventures. These small businesses may develop commercially valuable technology, and even
successfully develop new nanotechnology materials, tools, processes, or products, but lack the capital, infrastructure, or
sales and distribution channels to effectively bring such advances to market.

3
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.

3
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 world’s 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.

3
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-No Leader


There will be no leader in the race for nanotech
Dexter Johnson, editor of IEEE Spectrum, 08/20/07,
http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2007/08/the_nanotechnology_race_whats.html
There is a new round of laments about how the US has fallen behind other countries in nanotechnology development
after it was one of the first countries to establish a national nanotechnology initiative in 2000.
Indeed an estimated 35 other countries have announced some kind of nanotechnology initiative. But that’s just the
countries, there are countless regional economic development groups pushing to make themselves “nanotechnology
hubs."
The idea, I suppose, is that if a new industrial revolution is coming in the form of nanotechnology they want to make
sure their region enjoys all the employment growth that it will bring.
All this jockeying for position to become the next “Silicon Valley” I am afraid is misplaced. Nanotechnology's economic
benefit will not sort itself out in this way.
If there is to be any realized benefit for all these countries and regions trying to make themselves attractive to
nanotechnology development, it will be that they have refocused their educational systems to promote science instruction
and that they will examine their resource- or industrial-based economies to make them more knowledge-based
economies. Also, a lot of construction companies will make a bundle building all the new facilities.
But the US or any other country is not going to become the one, international hub for a yet to materialize nanotechnology
industry. In fact, no nanotechnology industry will ever materialize.
Nanotechnology is an enabling technology that will support other industries and technologies. If you do not have the
underlying industries that nanotechnologies will help support, it’s not clear what kind of economy you are going to create by
selling nanomaterials.
In the best case scenario, the nanotechnology race will lead to many countries and regions improving their educational
systems and moving their economies to more sustainable knowledge-driven one. But being a leader in nanotechnology?
Not likely.

3
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-Patents and Papers


Scientific papers and patents can’t indicate leadership
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
However, research and development investments, scientific papers, and patents may not provide reliable indicators of
the United States’ current or future competitive position. Scientific and technological leadership may not necessarily result
in commercial leadership and/or in national competitiveness for the following reasons:
Basic research in nanotechnology may not translate into viable commercial applications. 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.
Basic research is generally available to all competitors. Even when basic research presents the potential for commercial
exploitation, it may not deliver national advantage. Open publication and free exchange of research results are guiding
principles of federally funded fundamental research22 and research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities. This
approach may allow for the rapid expansion of global scientific and technical knowledge as new work is built on the
scaffolding of previous work. However, the information is available to all competitors, U.S. and foreign alike, and thus may
not confer competitive advantage to the United States.

4
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.

4
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/nanotech-
big-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 aren’t properly addressed.”

4
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-Stealing Information


Nanotech development won’t help U.S competition- Information can be
accessed by competitors
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 is generally available to all competitors. Even when basic research presents the potential for commercial
exploitation, it may not deliver national advantage. Open publication and free exchange of research results are guiding
principles of federally funded fundamental research22 and research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities. This
approach may allow for the rapid expansion of global scientific and technical knowledge as new work is built on the
scaffolding of previous work. However, the information is available to all competitors, U.S. and foreign alike, and thus
may not confer competitive advantage to the United States.

4
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-Stealing Information


Foreign companies can easily acquire U.S tech
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

U.S. companies with leading-edge, nanotechnology capabilities and/or their intellectual property may be acquired by
foreign competitors. Foreign companies may acquire leading-edge nanotechnology companies or their intellectual
property. This can take place, for example, as the result of an intentional business strategy to be acquired (a common exit
strategy for start-up companies), a hostile takeover if the enterprise is a public company, or when a business has failed or is
failing. In the latter case, the company or its intellectual property might be acquired at a fraction of its development
cost or potential value.

4
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-U.S. Students Move to Foreign Countries


U.S students will bring technology to foreign countries
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

U.S.-educated foreign students may return home to conduct research and create new businesses. In the era following
World War II, many of the most gifted and talented students from around the world were attracted to the science and
engineering programs of U.S. colleges and universities. For many years, many of those who graduated from these programs
decided to stay in the United States and contributed to U.S. global scientific, engineering, and economic leadership. Today,
many foreign students educated in the United States have economic opportunities in their home countries that did not
exist for previous generations. Some nations are making strong appeals and offering significant incentives for their
students to return home to conduct research and create enterprises. Thus, federal support for universities, in general,
and scientific and engineering research activities, in particular, may contribute to the development of leading scientists
and engineers who might return to their home countries to exploit the knowledge, capabilities, and networks developed
in the United State.

4
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-Infrastructure and Regulations


Infrastructure and regulations make U.S an undesirable place for nanotech
development
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

U.S. policies or other factors may impede nanotechnology commercialization, make it unaffordable, or make it less
attractive than foreign alternatives. Federal, state, and local policies (e.g., taxes, environmental and health regulations,
ethical restrictions) and other factors (e.g., availability, quality, and cost of labor; proximity to markets; customer requirements;
manufacturing infrastructure; public attitudes) may prevent or discourage commercialization of nanotechnology
innovations in the United States. Companies may be prohibited from producing a commercially viable product in the
United States, may be unable to do so affordably, or may find comparatively favorable conditions (e.g. lower taxes or tax
holidays; fewer regulatory restrictions; qualified, available, and less costly workforce) outside the United States.

4
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.

4
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 we’re 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.
GAO’s 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. We’ve 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 they’re safe
for the environment, and whether they’re safe for consumers once they reach the shelves. It’s critical that we do the
research up front, so we’re not asking what went wrong a hundred years from now.

4
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-Government Bad


Current government nanotech programs restrict important research
Jacob Heller and Christine Peterson, No Date, “U.S. Federal Nanotech R&D Funding”, Foresight Nanotech Institute
Policy Issues Brief, <http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html

Besides the amount of funding, the structure and duration of most NNI funded research is problematic. Because NNI budget
pressures have made the peer review process more conservative and because most grants are given for only one year,
many researchers essentially do the experiment before writing the grant to ensure year-after-year funding. This
necessarily constrains risk-taking and creativity, both of which are essential for large-breakthroughs in nanotech
research. The federal government should consider following Japan’s example and fund research projects for durations as long
as five years, or even more.

4
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Leadership Advantage-Producers Fail


Under current programs nanotech producers repeatedly fail
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

Beyond straight putts and fresh produce, can nano live up to its potential to create entirely new industries and
corporate titans? The answer depends on how the players, from regulators to entrepreneurs, handle a host of thorny
challenges. Governments must devise smart regulations to control new materials and therapies. Companies face logistical
conundrums, such as carrying out quality control on shipments of minuscule carbon nanotubes and silicon crystals --
the I-beams and sheet glass of this industrial revolution -- that are virtually invisible. The nascent industry also must
hammer out standards and enforcement practices that are sorely lacking. A 2004 study by Lux Research found that
many of the 200 global suppliers of basic nanomaterials failed to deliver what they promised. "As a group they have a
frighteningly poor track record," says Lux Vice-President Matthew Nordon. The upshot? Until the industry puts a qualified
supply chain in place, only innovators working with world-class labs can count on reliable material. This limits access to
nanotechnology and hurts its growth.

5
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Nanotechnology Bad-Laundry List


There are many risks to nanotech
John Robert Marlow, 2004, Interview on the Superswarm Option Nanotechnology Now, February, http://www.nanotech-
now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm

Even without these complications, response time makes success a very iffy proposition. Short of having a ready-to-blow
nuke on every street corner-which presents its own problems-such a scheme is, sooner or later, bound to fail. Other response
possibilities include the use of plasma or antimatter weapons, or nanite warheads, but no one sees either of the first two
options materializing any time soon, and the delivery problem remains with all three--the nanites in particular, because
once on-target they have the improbable task of catching and overtaking the bad swarm's replication rate--which isn't
going to happen.

5
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Nanotechnology Bad-Insurance Industry


Nanotech hurts the insurance industry
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

In addition to health and environmental risks, other societal issues are worrisome. Possible military, legal, privacy,
economic, and globalization impacts of nanotechnology have concerned scholars, government, and industry officials [1]-
[3], [10]. For example, one of the world’s leading insurance firms, Swiss Reinsurance, is worried about how
nanotechnology could affect the insurance industry, particularly if it becomes a “technological fiasco” like asbestos [26,
p. 7].

5
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.

5
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.

5
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.

5
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.

5
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Nanotechnology Bad-Aquatic Life


Nanotech is destructive to aquatic organisms
EE Times. (04/10/2008. Nanoparticles leaching into environment.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207100889
Silver nanoparticles used in fabrics were found by researchers to leach out after just a few washings, releasing harmful
toxins shown to harm aquatic life. While the effects of silver nanoparticles on humans have yet to be established, the
researchers recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require manufacturers to bind silver nanoparticles
to fabrics to prevent leaching during washing. They also recommended labeling products as containing potentially harmful
nanoparticles. "Nanosilver is used in products because it produces ionic silver when exposed to moisture--it is this ionic
silver that is well known to have antimicrobial effects as well as detrimental effects to aquatic organisms," said'Troy
Benn, an environmental engineer and dotoral candidate at Arizona State University (ASU).

5
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 (D-
CA) deserve much credit for their perseverance, leadership and dedication to this important innovation issue.”

5
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 isn’t 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.

5
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.

6
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 world’s 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 technology’s 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.

6
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.

6
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.

6
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 president’s office to lobby across the administration for future nanotech research funds.

6
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 nanotech’s 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].

6
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Press Influences Public


Negative press on nanotech has influenced public opinion
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

While the paragraphs provided an overall balanced vfocus, article headlines did not. Close to half of them were
negative: 48 percent of the U.S. and 44 percent of the U.K. articles. Only about 23 percent of the U.S. and 14 percent of the
U.K. headlines were positive, with the rest either neutral or mixed. Interesting, the U.S. publications had both the most
negative and positive headlines, with twice as many negative as positive ones. The U.K. negative headlines were more than
three times the number of positive headlines, but U.K. newspapers included more neutral and mixed headlines (20 and 22
percent) compared to U.S. headlines (15.5 and 14 percent). Negative headlines partially reflect the need of headline writers (not
reporters) to attract readers and sometimes do not reflect the focus of the articles themselves. Coders in this study often found
that negative headlines did not reflect the articles they topped. Unfortunately, readers often glance at headlines but do not
read the accompanying articles, so people could have taken away a more negative impression about nanotech’s health
and environmental risks than the articles.

6
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Press Influences Public


Public has negative opinion of nanotech due to press
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

Media coverage that compares nanotechnology to other technologies that have “bad” reputations could negatively
impact people’s opinions of nanotech. In particular, U.S. scientists and government officials have been concerned about
whether the media would link risks from GMOs to those of nanotechnology, leading to calls for more government
regulation. Only 31 percent of U.S. and 40 percent of U.K. articles included any mention of risk similarities between
nanotechnology and GMOs or biotechnology. Less that 40 percent of the U.S. and U.K. articles discussed a need for new or
tightened regulations about nanotechnology.

6
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Coal Disadvantage Link


Solar Nanotech is cheaper it will replace coal
Celias. November 23, 2007. Nanosolar's Breakthrough - Solar Now Cheaper than Coal.
http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/

Their mission: to deliver cost-efficient solar electricity. The Nanosolar company was founded in 2002 and is working to
build the world's largest solar cell factory in California and the world's largest panel-assembly factory in Germany.
They have successfully created a solar coating that is the most cost-efficient solar energy source ever. Their PowerSheet
cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents
per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.

6
Nanotechnology Neg
DDI 2008 BQ
Andy and Hannah

Coal Disadvantage Link


Solar nanotech will replace coal
David Gutierrez. June 7, 2008. Staff Writer Natural News. Nanosolar Price Barrier Breakthrough Makes Solar Electricity
Cheaper Than Coal.

A new combination of nano and solar technology has made it possible for solar electric generation to be cheaper than
burning coal. Nanosolar, Inc. has developed a way to produce a type of ink that absorbs solar radiation and converts
into electric current. Photovoltaic (PV) sheets are produced by a machine similar to a printing press, which rolls out the PV
ink onto sheets approximately the width of aluminum foil. These PV sheets can be produced at a rate of hundreds of feet per
minute. "It's 100 times thinner than existing solar panels, and we can deposit the semiconductors 100 times faster," said
Nanosolar's cofounder and chief executive officer, R. Martin Roscheisen. "It's a combination that drives down costs
dramatically." Because of their light weight and flexibility, the PV sheets (dubbed PowerSheets) are much more versatile than
current PV panels, which must be mounted on sturdy surfaces like roofs or the ground. In addition, because there is no silicon
used in the production of the sheets, they cost only 30 cents per watt of power produced.Traditional PV cells cost
approximately $3 per watt, while burning coal costs about $1 per watt. "This is the first time that we can actually drop the
cost of solar electricity down to a level that would be competitive with grid electricity in most industrialized nations,"
said Nanosolar co-founder Brian Sager.