User name:
Password:
Register now |  Forgot your password?  
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009
articles.php?which=LetsTalkBusinessEthics-Seriously
Let's Talk Business Ethics . No, Seriously.

Are there some new ideas and technologies that are better left alone? As the New York Times reports today, among certain communities there's growing concern regarding the long-term impact of some new businesses—and the technology that they're developing.

Take Planktos, a start-up based in California. They were developing a technology that was intended to help address the issue of carbon emissions and global warming. Specifically, their plan was to "fertilize" parts of the South Atlantic Ocean with iron, which they said would help produce carbon-absorbing plankton that they could then market as carbon offsets to the general public. It sounded like a great idea until it wasn't. It quickly became apparent that Planktos was in some sort of ethical gray area. That's because it was unclear whether what they were doing was 1) safe 2) effective and 3) whether it violated international treaties regarding dumping at sea. The U.N. called for a moratorium on their work, but it didn't matter much anyway, mainly because the start-up flopped after running out of funding. While their website is no longer in existence, their blog—which reflects on their ambitions—remains:

"We're taking our chances on this one, hoping to 'save the planet, and make a little money of the side'(as our CEO likes to say). If things go as planned, we'll have taken millions of pounds of carbon out of the atmophere [sic] and begun to restore ocean ecosystems by the end of the year."

But is it fair for a start-up to take "a chance" without the public's consent—particularly if their technology could have significant, long-lasting, or potentially harmful repercussions? Along with certain green initiatives, nano-technology, which is hot among entrepreneurs right now, is another one of the fields that have raised concerns among various groups regarding what long-term impact that technology could have.

So now we turn the question on you. Do you think there should be limits placed on what types of technology entrepreneurs should pursue, or do you think this is limiting, unfair—and a touch hysterical? Let's hear what you have to say in the comments section below.

You must be registered
and signed in to leave comments.


It's a matter of reach, of how public the results of the technology will be. Developing carbon nanotubes to be used for an international space elevator is one thing—that primarily affects those involved. Dumping iron in the ocean in attempt to widely alter the biology of the ocean and the chemical makeup of the atmosphere is another—that could affect all of us.

It's short-sighted and dangerous to restrict advances in science and related technological applications. We shouldn't discourage nanotech for fear of someone developing invisible armies of molecular-disassembler bots. But it's equally stupid to mess with things as big as the ocean when you're not certain of the results.
richard
15:44, August 12th, 2008