Off Camera

Well, that was fun. Or not. The hearings of Samuel Alito are over, finally. At the end of day two, Arlen Specter thought Americans would be impressed: "[P]eople have been watching them, and they see long hours, and they see seriousness, and they see important issues, and they see the kind of dignity which we have had here today." That was before day three. (Specter: "[W]e actually didn't get a letter...." Kennedy: "You did get a letter." Specter: "Well, now wait a minute; you don't know what I got. ..." And so forth. )This isn't to say the squabble between Kennedy and Specter wasn't diverting. But it did reinforce something that has become ever more apparent as we continue down the post-Bork path: Televised hearings of Supreme Court nominees are a miserable ordeal for the candidates and a waste of time for the rest of us. Let's review what we would have been spared had senators been deprived of the camera: Charts. Do closed sessions feature much in the way of charts? Seems doubtful. Useless questions devised solely for entrapment. Chuck Schumer was the undisputed master. Pouncing on earlier pronouncements by Alito that certain areas of the law are "settled," Schumer asked, "Is Roe settled or not?" To which the real answer is, "Of course not." If it were "settled law," there'd be no need to harp on it every time someone is nominated to the Court. Questions to no one in particular. Thank you, Tom Coburn. Joe Biden. To have Biden on display is bad for Democrats everywhere. Weeping spouses. 'Nuff said. At least Lindsey Graham was willing to acknowledge what was really going on, telling Alito: "But this is really not about you, so you don't have to listen. I'm talking to other people right now." Well, if he doesn't have to listen, neither should we. By 2010, experts estimate that nanotechnology, the science of working on atomic and molecular levels, will be a $1 trillion industry. But things aren't all rosy for the nanotech world. Last Wednesday, a report from the Woodrow Wilson Center's Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies warned that nanotechnology could present a significant health threat if left unregulated; worse, noted its author, J. Clarence Davies, current laws "provide a very weak basis for identifying and protecting the public from potential risk." The report is only the latest in a series of think- tank statements, news articles, and congressional hearings warning of the coming nanotech threat. Which means that new regulations may, in fact, be called for--not because nanotech is a threat, but rather to prevent the public from drawing that very conclusion. True, studies have shown that some ultrafine, nano-manipulated carbon molecules can promote blood clotting or impede breathing, much in the same way asbestos does. And, when scientists have the technology to mechanically alter DNA, new ethical questions will arise. Hence the need for smart, effective regulation. Davies proposes several possible regulatory regimes. One might consist of a system of tax breaks and incentives to focus on environmentally friendly research. Another complementary step would be for the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a review and approval process for work done on the nano level. (In fact, the EPA has already begun developing such guidelines.) The idea is not to limit or control the industry per se, but to give the public reassurance. * T.A. Frank writes regularly for TNR Online. For complete articles, go to tnr.com

By T.A. Frank; Clay Risen