#CrazyTech
Welcome to #CrazyTech, a list of some of the newest idiotic, dangerous, delusional and just plain crazy technologies. We are approaching the list with a light-hearted spirit of ridicule and contempt – but in reality, we find the thought of most of these technologies quite terrifying.
Don't get us wrong – we're not saying new technologies are bad. We're saying they should be safe, effective and meet genuine public need – not be driven by corporations to maximise profit. The research and development of new technologies should be open to public debate and the entire life cycle of the technology considered – not just the use.
We're opening up this Pandora's Box of crazy technologies with a Top Ten list. But with crazy new technologies constantly emerging, we can't spot them all. So we'd love your help. You can use #crazytech on twitter, and email us with examples of the latest crazy technology so we can post it to the #crazytech list on our new Emerging Technologies Project website (emergingtech.archive.foe.org.au).
1. Glow in the dark synbio plants
In April 2013 a group of 'bio-hackers' from California used the social media fund-raising website Kickstarter to raise almost half a million dollars to commercialise a synthetic biology plant that glows in the dark. In exchange for seed funding the glowing plant project promised to send 100's of thousands of bioengineered seeds to over 6000 random individuals across North America – in effect a large unregulated release of a synthetic organism. Because the technology is so new the US Department of Agriculture has declared itself unable to regulate it and despite vocal opposition from ecologists the Glowing Plant company will start mailing out its synbio plants in September 2014. Of course we have no way of knowing the impacts these synthetic organisms will have on the environment and the project sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to the uncontrolled release of synthetic organisms.
On their Etsy store website1 the Glowing Plant team state: "Show your friends you care about sustainability and help inspire others about the potential of synthetic biology to make the world a better place." Huh?
2. Nano-silver socks
Socks impregnated with nano-silver promise their antibacterial properties will eliminate unpleasant foot odour. Brilliant! That is, until we consider the significant consequences that the use of nano-silver may have on human health and the environment.
Nano-silver is used in a wide range of socks, undies, shirts and much, much more to kill microbes. The majority of the nano-silver will be washed down the drain after 3 washes and once leaked from a garment, nano-silver ends up in the environment and you're back at stinky-foot-square one. Not only that but studies have shown nano-silver is highly toxic to aquatic organisms – causing zebrafish to develop with head deformations and no eyes.
Most nano-silver winds up in sewage sludge which is applied to agricultural land where it has been found to disrupt nitrogen-fixing bacteria in soil, posing a potentially catastrophic threat to global food production. Scientists have also warned that the widespread use of nano-silver will encourage the development of antimicrobial (antibiotic) resistant bacteria, recently described by the WHO as a "major global threat" to public health. These potentially catastrophic side effects raise the question – are these socks really worth the risk?
3. Spraying sulphate aerosols into atmosphere
Helplessness and hopelessness can drive you to insanity. The paralysis brought about by human inaction on climate change has led to some crazy ideas and suggestions − most notably geoengineering − the large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract climate change. Geoengineering ideas include seeding blooms of ocean algae with iron nanoparticles; reflecting the sun's warming rays back into space with lots of tiny mirrors; and covering the Sahara desert with trees. But at the top of this list of insane ideas must surely be the spraying of sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space –sometimes referred to as global dimming.
One of the most vocal advocates of this idea is Harvard University physicist David Keith, who calls it "a cheap tool that could green the world." Keith suggests we start with a fleet of just ten jet planes injecting sulphates into the atmosphere, which would then rise to a fleet of hundreds of planes, before carbon emissions started to fall. Other suggestions include using artillery, balloons and giant chimneys to get the particles sky high.
But the stakes couldn't be higher. The only 'scientific experiments' big enough to test these ideas would have to be large enough to potentially affect the entire planet, risking uncontrollable outcomes. What's more, a recent study in Nature Communications suggests all major geoengineering proposals will be largely ineffective, with unintended and potentially unstoppable consequences.
Despite this, there is a real threat that some governments and scientists will push ahead with geoengineering, irrespective of a lack of global consensus. The fact geoengineering is still being considered at all suggests we have already experienced the global dimming of some scientists…deluded into thinking they can control the climate.
4. Synthetic yeast
The recent announcement of the creation of the first synthetic yeast chromosome sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Scientists claim this and other applications of synthetic biology will allow us to understand lots more about how our own human cells function. However, we can be certain that biotechnology corporations will steer these new technologies towards anything which will potentially create profit, ignoring any potential long-term adverse consequences.
The researchers have been deliberately trying to engineer a synthetic yeast which can outcompete wild yeast. What's more, microorganisms are renowned for their ability to swap genes – meaning that the synthetic DNA may not be confined to the synthetic yeast for long. We only need to look to the ability of bacteria to swap and trade antimicrobial resistance genes when confronted with nano-silver or antibiotics.
Scientists have found that yeasts have a critical role in flowering plants – promoting root growth and establishing symbiosis with healthy soil mycorrhizae, and fermenting flower nectar to warm the flower, which enhances pollen germination and distribution by insects such as bees and wasps. The release of a synthetic yeast has the potential to not just purportedly improve beer, but also wreak havoc with the very basis of our natural systems – and our agricultural systems too.
Alarmingly, synthetic biology is not specifically regulated by any government in the world.
5. Carbon nanotubes in agriculture
Scientists have discovered that carbon nanotubes can boost plant growth if they are treated to be more soluble and are absorbed by plants. One research group has even produced 'bionic plants' by inserting carbon nanotubes into plant chloroplasts, suggesting that this may enhance photosynthesis. Carbon nanotubes have also been touted as potential directed delivery systems for pesticides, fertilisers, and other chemicals because of their ability to easily penetrate membranes like the cell walls of plants.
Sound good?? Er, no. Okay − so what's wrong with us giving plants a carbon boost? Well for a start, carbon nanotubes are highly toxic to aquatic life − including algae, fresh water fleas and some fish species, even at very low concentrations. They have anti-microbial properties – raising serious questions about their impacts on soil microorganisms. They are one of the least bio-degradable and most energy-intensive materials made by humans. They have been shown to migrate to the leaves and fruit of some plants − and some studies have raised concerns they may bioaccumulate. Oh, and mouse experiments suggests the inhalation of carbon nanotubes will cause severe lung disease and promote lung cancer. All in all, the idea of putting carbon nanotubes inside plants is surely a little shop of horrors…
6. Synthetic DNA
Life on Earth has relied on four DNA subunits – G, T, A and C – for billions of years.
However, US scientists have now created two new letters of the DNA alphabet 'X' and 'Y', encoded into living, breathing – and dividing – E. coli cells. Lead researcher Floyd Romesberg claims it's all perfectly safe, preferring to think "If you read a book that was written with four letters, you're not going to be able to tell many interesting stories. If you're given more letters, you can invent new words, you can find new ways to use those words and you can probably tell more interesting stories."2 But will all of these "interesting" stories have happy endings?
For now, the new X/Y DNA does nothing. But what this new alien genetics does, is open up the potential possibility of creating new amino acids, proteins and enzymes − and new 'alien' life-forms, never before seen in nature – with new unpredictable outcomes. Here, the engineered microbe – E. coli − is a human gut bacteria. So if something goes wrong, we humans will probably be amongst the first species on Earth to be affected.
One could argue that ethical questions about where to draw a line around how far synthetic biology research should go, and acceptable risks – have gone from "where to draw a line" to "whether anyone is going to bother to draw a line at all?"…
7. Underground coal gasification
As governments around the world wrestle with the problem of how to urgently reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, some genius has just come up with an idea of how to create a whole lot more! Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is a process where coal and gas reserves – previously deemed unreachable – are set alight underground and the emissions captured. Whilst not exactly new, pilot projects of this crazy technology have recently been promoted to create fuel or feedstock (called "Syngas") for a range of chemical products.
UCG is being sold on the basis that it saves time and money in mining, and prevents mines and waste dumps scarring the landscape. On the flip side, as the fire burns along the coal seam, the space created can lead to collapsing of the overlying geology making the land unstable and leading to groundwater contamination with shale gas and toxic by-products – as tragically revealed recently in Queensland.3 Subsidence may also supply oxygen to underground fires, allowing the coal seams to burn indefinitely. Earlier this year, Australians witnessed the difficulties of extinguishing the uncontrolled coal fire at Morwell mine. Imagine the added complexities of this situation underground, with unknown unknown escape pathways for released toxins.
In short, UCG is about as good an idea as using thalidomide to treat morning sickness.
8. Floating nuclear power plants
Floating nuclear power plants − perhaps not a string of words that you have come across before? And probably for a good reason – it makes no sense. Yet researchers looking into how to avoid repeating nuclear disasters, like the Fukushima meltdown in 2011, seem to think floating nuclear power plants (FNPP) are the solution to generating safe nuclear energy. By floating in open water, FNPPs are thought to be at lower risk of damage from tsunamis and earthquakes, and in the event of a nuclear meltdown "the ocean itself can be used as an infinite heat sink", claims Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. The idea has gained supporters in America, Russia and Japan over recent years, however the advantages are yet to be proven.
Construction of the first ever FNPP is currently underway in Russia, intended to provide power for the expansion of Russia's oil-and-gas industry in remote areas, including the Arctic. But we've all given up on Arctic sea ice anyway, right? Oh, and in the event of radioactive material leaking from a FNPP meltdown, the pollution would not be limited to surrounding soil as it would be with a land based power plant. Instead being transported wherever the ocean currents took it − and potentially persisting in global waters for thousands of years. Genius.
9. The woolly mammoth project
Along with the Passenger pigeon, the thylacine and the dodo, new stories about the woolly mammoth just won't go away. You know − the one where they bring them back from extinction. Termed 'de-extinction', scientists are talking about taking the genomes of living species and editing, gene-by-gene, to re-create entire genomes.
Harvard University Professor George Church even claims that reanimating the woolly mammoth could "stave off some effects of warming" in the icy and grassy tundras of Russia and Canada!4 Meanwhile Stewart Brand from de-extinction organisation Revive & Restore cites "the pure thrill of the prospect of herds of mammoths bringing tusker wisdom back to the far north" as his motivation.
Apart from the obvious impact of wholesale ecosystem disruption if synthetically produced versions of extinct species are introduced into the wild, there are a number of other reasons why de-extinction is a really bad idea. As Professor Paul Erlich from Stanford University argues "it is much more sensible to put all the limited resources for science and conservation into preventing extinctions, by tackling the causes of demise: habitat destruction, climate disruption, pollution, overharvesting, and so on. Spending millions of dollars trying to de-extinct a few species will not compensate for the thousands of populations and species that have been lost due to human activities, to say nothing of restoring the natural functions of their former habitats."5 The ecologist Daniel Simberloff raises another important concern "de-extinction suggests that we can technofix our way out of environmental issues generally, and that's very, very bad."6
10. 'Waterproof' nanocoatings
Nanotechnology-based waterproof coatings are taking the internet by storm. Companies such as NeverWet, P2i and UltraEverDry are promising to protect your precious objects, electronics and home surfaces with their nanomaterial products. Albeit for only about a year before they start to break down – especially when exposed to light. These products use a wide range of chemicals, some of which we've sadly encountered before – such as fluorocarbons.
Now, companies are using industrial pulsed-plasma and fluorocarbon polymer coatings, to provide a "'magical' protective liquid repellent nano-coating for smartphones", and other electronic devices. However, perhaps of even more immediate concern to consumers, is UltraEverDry.7 Using a mixture of Bayer proprietary compounds (with names like BAYHYDROL 124) and a mixture of noxious solvents like xylene, UltraEverDry is sprayed onto surfaces in two simple stages.
UltraEverDry is ostensibly for industrial use only. The US online shop even lists simple respirators, goggles and gloves for sale − although sadly these were not in stock when we looked. However, this policy isn't enforced and there is lots of evidence of consumer demand and use. On deeper inspection, UltraTech does warn against women using the product, as the chemicals can cause "reproductive toxicity" and are harmful to pregnant women.8 You've been warned …
References:
1 http://www.glowingplant.com/store
2 Calloway, E. (2014) First life with 'alien' DNA, Nature, 7/5/14, www.nature.com/news/first-life-with-alien-dna-1.15179
3 Solomons, M. & Willacy, M. (2014) Queensland landholders claim secrecy over experimental coal gasification plant, ABC News, 16/4/14, www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/landholders-claim-secrecy-over-experiment...
4 George Church (2013) De-Extinction Is a Good Idea, Scientific American, 309(3), www.scientificamerican.com/article/george-church-de-extinction-is-a-good...
5 Ehrlich, P.R (2014) The Case Against De-Extinction: It’s a Fascinating but Dumb Idea, Yale Environment 360, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_case_against_de-extinction_its_a_fascin...
6 Rich, N. (2014) The Mammoth Cometh, New York Times Magazine, 27/2/14, www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?_r=0
8 http://inhabitat.com/ultratechs-ever-dry-makes-virtually-anything-water-... viewed 9/6/14.