NANOTECHNOLOGY is set to affect almost every aspect of our lives, displacing older technologies and enabling radically new products and processes. This is a bold claim, but it has pretty much become established doctrine among the governments of the major economies. If it is even half right, the implications are profound. How should society respond to this coming revolution? Will we be in a position to participate, or will we be passive receivers or rejectors of innovations concocted by a handful of technologists?
Greenpeace sees merit in lots of technologies, but not all: we campaign to promote renewable energy technology and cleaner waste management, but to halt nuclear power and genetically modified crops. With key frontiers such as AI, robotics and nanotechnology it is easy to speculate about possible societal outcomes. But we wanted to ground our view on a solid understanding of what such technologies are capable of. That is why we commissioned experts at Imperial College London to carry out a thorough science-based survey of their prospects.
In the case of nanotechnology, the report foresees valuable innovations, but also some causes for concern. Nanotechnology could offer a route towards the goal of the clean energy system we so desperately need if we are to avoid climate change, air pollution and nuclear waste. But the priorities accorded to environmental and social protection in the nanotech agenda seem low. How can civil society influence technology agendas still largely dictated by a few?
Advertisement
A technology that is fundamentally about making new things or making them in a different way will, sooner or later, have some impact on our environment. This could be positive, negative or both. Greenpeace sees no reason to consider nanotechnology intrinsically harmful or damaging 鈥� indeed its breadth and the wide range of its applications make discussion of nanotechnology as something unequivocally 鈥済ood鈥� or 鈥渂ad鈥� virtually meaningless. The report identifies faster computers and diagnostic aids as the first available products, in sharp but mundane contrast to any suggestion of global nirvana or global cataclysm.
To be sure, the 鈥済rey goo鈥� scenario in which self-replicating nanoscale robots run amok is in the report. But this scenario is so distant that potential controls on such developments will not be required for many years, if ever. Attempts to fuse nanotech and biotech could, if successful, provide a less distant source of self-replicating 鈥渕achines鈥�, but this, too, is not yet pressing. Grey goo is in reality a distraction from the real issues.
Nanoparticles, on the other hand, are in the here and now. They are already used in a variety of applications, including sunscreens and bandages. The commercial attraction is that they have chemical properties not found in their bulk counterparts. The disturbing aspect is that they are going into the environment and our bodies with little knowledge about their effects on health and environmental fate. The mistake made with DDT and PCBs is being repeated with a shiny new technology. It is not a good omen for the way this technology might be brought on-stream.
The interests of those who own and control new technologies determine the use to which they are put. Any technology in the hands of those who care little about its environmental, health and social impacts is an accident waiting to happen.
People inevitably ask questions about new technologies 鈥� good and valid ones. Who is in control? Where can I get information I trust? What risks apply with what certainty and to whom? Do the risks and benefits fall to the same people (mobile phones are popular, mobile phone masts are not)? Such questions can only be properly answered by meaningful public dialogue and by factoring in environmental and social goals from the start of the R&D process.
With nanotechnology we have a golden opportunity to do just that. Instead of waiting for the suspicions and concerns to build, the scientific community could be proactive. Why not hold a citizens鈥� jury to determine scientific priorities on nanotech? The jury could draw on witnesses from many sectors 鈥� IT, agriculture, defence, energy, pharmaceuticals. It could suggest which areas need to be given the highest priority. Funding agencies and research councils could commit to considering the results and using the insights. This last step is important if dialogue between science and society is to be more than just a sophisticated way of engineering user acceptance.
If nanotechnologists are convinced the benefits will stand up to scrutiny, they should have no qualms about engaging public support. Conversely, ignoring concerns could lead to political controversy and market rejection. Over the long term, global technologies can be of greater significance than prime ministers or presidents. Scrutinising such technologies before financial or political commitments to them become irreversible could be hugely beneficial. A democratic society should surely require nothing less.