A decade ago, with my alma mater still basking in the glow of our great "Buckyball" discovery, I challenged our President with an ethical question. (This Buckyball was caged at the-scientist.com back in 1997.)

He dismissed it, and I felt the whole room cool toward me. (A few more glasses of wine solved that.)

Well, the debate is finally upon us. How else do you explain such contradictory headlines for the same report:

• Nanotech leads way to quantum computing
  
• Tighter rules proposed for nanoparticles
  
• Nanotech 'harmful until proved safe'
  
• Most nanotech poses 'no new risks'
  

I guess it depends on the spin.

Seriously, when you start playing atom-by-atom there are grave, grave risks. Some of those risks come from "rogue scientists," others from "rogue companies" (something that's only known in retrospect) others from "rogue governments" (and any government can become a rogue).

How do we manage those risks without managing the scientific process itself? That's the question that was dismissed a decade ago.

I'm asking again. And this time I expect an answer. We can't un-learn nanotechnology, but we can't dismiss these hard questions, either.

Let's get busy.