Will nanotechnology make the world abetter place?Douglas Parr

Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, UK, N1 2PN

Nanotechnology could produce a revolutionary wave of

innovation in society. The form that such a revolution

might take will depend upon many things but certainly

upon the context, content and purposes of research

projects and agendas decided by existing political and

corporate institutions. Lessons from the genetically

modified organism debate indicate that the behaviour

of these institutions is at least as important as the ‘risk’

in informing public acceptability. This article argues that

current research priorities need to shift in favour of

environmental and health protection to engender public

support and/or an ongoing need to remain sensitive to

emerging societal preferences.

Introduction

Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/) can see thatnanotechnology can be used for both good and badpurposes. Greenpeace believe that it is impossible tohave a ‘view’ about nanotechnology as a whole because theapplications are so broad and there exists uncertaintyabout the final outcomes. We can see and endorse thepossibilities for cheaper solar power*, stronger moreefficient materials [1,2], and possibly efficient energy useand cleaner production processes. However, althoughthere is much visionary rhetoric about an renewableenergy revolution (e.g. http://smalley.rice.edu), much ofthe advances in nanotech in the energy field seem to beabout expanding the use of fossil fuels, which cause globalwarming [3]. Nanotech could be used for militaryapplications promoting a ‘nanotech arms race’ [4] or bysocial pressure force ‘cures’ on those who do not want them[5]. It is also likely that, as with any new technology, it isimpossible at present to identify potential downsides,about which – at the moment – we can only guess (for adiscussion on the literature of this, see Ref. [6]).

If one recognizes that there is potential for both goodand bad, how will it be possible to obtain the one withoutthe other and, as a prerequisite, agree on what the ‘good’actually is. These issues are no different for nanotech thanfor any other part of science and technology – but ifnanotech is as revolutionary as many expect then it makesthese questions much more important and urgent than inother areas. If nanotech is all hype and no substance then

Corresponding author: Parr, D. (Doug.Parr@uk.greenpeace.org).Available online 20 June 2005

* See for example possible efficient hydrogen generation from nanocrystaline solarcells, http://www.hydrogensolar.com and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3536156.stm.

www.sciencedirect.com 0167-7799/$ - see front matter Q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

there is no particular reason to attach special weight tothe concerns here.

This article seeks first to explore the relationshipbetween technology and society, and especially the widerlessons for nanotech from the genetically modifiedorganism (GMO) debate, then to look at the implicationsof those lessons for institutional arrangements andfunding, and the relationship of science and technologywith the public.

It might seem odd to have an article that is concernedwith the future looking almost entirely at the present butthe scope of the future positives and negatives fromnanotechnology will depend on decisions that are madenow. Furthermore, the more radical innovations thatnanotech might produce cannot yet be foreseen, and thebest way to handle this uncertainty and ambiguity is todevelop robust social processes. One would not expect goodexperimental data from badly designed experiments –neither can one expect good social outcomes fromdysfunctional social institutions. This is as true for theinteraction of technology with society as it is for socialwelfare and policing.

Nanotechnology and society

The budding nanotechnology community is keen to ‘notmake the mistakes of GM’. Well that might be a laudableaspiration but why is it that New Scientist can still say ofnanotechnology ‘the same questions are being asked of itas were asked of GM crops, and once again the answersare not there’ [7]? Partly this is about the hazards ofnanoparticles, but it is also about the economic and socialcontext for technology development by global multi-national companies in an economically liberalized frame-work combined with rapid technology transfer.

The emerging questions about the relationship betweentechnology and society prompted Greenpeace UK to co-host, with New Scientist and the Royal Institution(http://www.rigb.org), a series of debates about the limitsto, and the management of, new technology as it relates tosociety (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?anducidparamZ20020419150011andMenuPointZA-LandCFIDZ970981andCFTOKENZ24763425). The experi-ence of Greenpeace was that there was virtually no-one whocould give an across-the-board assessment of nanotechnol-ogy and other new technologies in terms of their technicalpossibilities, likely impacts and emerging concerns.

Greenpeace commissioned a report to survey the scenefrom Imperial College, London (http://www.imperial.ac.

Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.23 No.8 August 2005

. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2005.06.001

Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.23 No.8 August 2005396

uk/ [8]). Although the identified near- and medium-termdevelopments indicate uptake in certain sectors such asIT, it remains too early to say with certainty what productswould emerge that would be ‘revolutionary’, at least in theway that nanotech has sometimes been described [9]. Itwas feasible to identify some potential issues, includingthe development of a ‘nano-divide’, the destructive poten-tial of nanotechnology and the new hazards that mightemerge from nanoparticles [8]. Nanoparticles provide thefirst case study of the receptiveness of nanotech policyformulators to respond to outside perspectives (Box 1).

In the longer term, a bigger challenge for the nanotechpolicy community than dealing with nanoparticles will beto devise processes to integrate perspectives of a widercommunity of ‘users’ and the lay public where not allrelevant aspects of the issues are known and understood.This might seem a curious need but will be required if thelessons of the biotech controversies are to be understoodand taken on board. To do this requires an understandingof what those lessons actually are but, at the same time,recognizing that nanotechnology is different in terms ofscope and possibilities from GMOs.

Lessons from the GMO debates

GMOs had a relatively long period of broadly positivemedia coverage across Europe from the end of the 1980sthrough to the mid-1990s [10], and initial GM foodofferings in UK were being accepted onto the market –proponents might have thought that ‘acceptance wasgoing well’. In reality, the deeper structural and insti-tutional problems of biotech development were crucial tothe scepticism with which it was later treated.

The most comprehensive analysis of public disquietover the prospect of GM food is from the PublicPerceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europeproject (PABE; http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/),which looked at underlying public concerns in fivecountries; France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Tothe surprise of researchers, the scepticism seemed to haveorigins in similar attitudes despite national culturaldifferences. The attitudes were not driven by ‘risk’ in the

Box 1. Nanoparticles

The hazards of nanoparticles have been known for over a decade,

since the identification of ultrafine airborne particles as a major cause

of mortality and morbidity in urban environments [24]. However, the

causal mechanism for these health outcomes is not well understood,

neither is (entirely) its relevance to the health threat of synthetic

nanoparticles, which might – or might not – behave differently

compared to the nanoparticles of the existing atmospheric burden,

which are largely a by-product of combustion processes. As a

scientific evaluation exercise, understanding the health and environ-

mental impacts of nanoparticles is a formidable cross-disciplinary

challenge. The state of understanding has recently been reviewed [25].

However, as a policy exercise the regulation of nanoparticles is a

relatively familiar exercise – it is about what to permit when there is

plausible cause for concern and considerable scientific uncertainty

about impacts; where should responsibility lie, who should take the

lead in getting answers, where should liability lie, and so on. In that

sense, it is similar to the policy on chemical regulation with respect to

endocrine disruption, or that of the impact of low-level radiation

exposure.

www.sciencedirect.com

scientifically understood sense of hazard and probabil-ities, but were much more about institutional and culturalresponsibilities. The researchers summarized publicscepticism in the form of the questions that were beingasked (see Box 2). And they stated that ‘[predominantly]concerns expressed. were mostly based on empirical layknowledge about the past behaviour of institutionsresponsible for the development and regulation of techno-logical innovations and risks’ [11]. This is a crucial under-standing if the concerns of the public are to be properly met.It is not just the narrowly defined safety of the products thatis at issue but responsibility being taken for those products,and the choice of developments in the first place. In this casethe concern was – with considerable justification – that GMcrops were being used to extend a model of agriculture thatwas industrialized and out of keeping with other kinds offood production and manufacture. Yet frequently, publicconcerns about GM food were described as being irrationalfear about small risks [12].

What can be learnt from this about the potential publicacceptance (or rejection) of nanotechnologies? Clearly thepoint about institutional responsibility (i.e. governments,companies and research establishments generally) isrelevant to nanotech – what are the attributes of ‘thesystem’ into which new products and processes willemerge? Do they have public sympathy or not? Couldnew products act as ‘lightning conductors’ for widerconcerns about the general thrust of economic and socialdevelopments? Can the appropriate choice of productdevelopment mitigate these concerns? If so, how can theproper choice of developments, through R&D pro-grammes, be made to happen?

Some clues have emerged from work in the UK over thepast few years. The role of public values in setting‘standards’ for institutional and corporate behaviour,and the need to treat such values with respect, has beenrecognized for some time [13]. In 2000, the House of LordsScience and Technology Committee [14] urged a ‘dialogue’between science and the public, promoting two-waycommunication rather than the didactic style previouslyfavoured, on the basis that science was suffering a crisis of

Recently, there has been a significant recognition of the need for

some form of regulation – from the EU Commission [19,26] and from

the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering report on nanotech-

nology commissioned by the UK Government [27]. The UK Govern-

ment has essentially accepted that there are new toxicology issues

[28].

Currently, personal exposure to nanoparticles will be dominated by

those derived from the by-products of combustion. However,

dispersive uses of nanoparticles are growing. For example, they are

already being used in sunscreens (titanium dioxide) and clothing

(silver oxide). A fuel additive (10 nm cerium oxide) is being used in

1000 diesel buses across the UK to improve fuel efficiency, although

the fate of the nanoparticles is unknown. Although relatively slow to

appreciate the potential problem in the first instance, the nanotech

community is now experiencing growing calls for legislation to

minimize or prevent exposure to nanoparticles. The jury is still out

on whether such response to these calls will be seen as a welcome

opportunity to demonstrate responsibility or generate obfuscation,

denial and delay.

Box 2. Questions from the public about GM crops and food

arising from public attitude research across five countries*

† Why do we need GMOs? What are the benefits?

† Who will benefit from their use?

† Who decided that they should be developed and how?

† Why were we not better informed about their use in our food,

before their arrival on the market?

† Why are we not given an effective choice about whether to buy and

consume these products?

† Do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers and resources to

effectively counter-balance large companies who wish to develop

these products?

† Can controls imposed by regulatory authorities be applied

effectively?

† Have the risks been seriously assessed? If so, by whom? How?

† Have potential long-term consequences been assessed? How?

† How have irreducible uncertainties and unavoidable domains of

ignorance been taken into account in decision-making?

† What plans exist for remedial action if and when unforeseen

harmful impacts occur?

† Whowill be responsible in case of unforeseen harm? Howwill they

be held to account?

* Taken from [29].

Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.23 No.8 August 2005 397

confidence at the public level. However, it is a less well-known report from the University of Lancaster (http://www.lancs.ac.uk; [15]) that has the most direct lessons fornanotech, as the authors point out that new technologieshave their own ‘social constitutions’ and factors such asdistribution of expertise, location of benefits, and avail-ability of choices determine the likelihood of willingacceptance, so that a contrast can be drawn sharplybetween IT technologies and GMOs.

† Anyone who argues that this limits scientific freedom should note that thisprioritization happens already – it is just that the decision-making is generallyunaccountable and hidden.

What drives nanotechnology? And what should?

Given these clear lessons about how GM technologydeveloped and that concerns are not simply about‘GMOs’ but how it was developed, it is disappointingthat, predominantly, debates about nanotechnology fromgovernments have been dominated by the simple metric ofthe amount of money being put into nanotechnology forinternational competitiveness reasons – not whether it isbeing spent on the right things or whether the proposedscience and technology developments carry a broaderpublic support. A debate in the UK Parliament aboutnanotechnology [16], and a Select Committee report [17]that preceded it, contained essentially no mention ofthese. Clearly, the quantity of money being invested innanotech development is important but characterizing thesuccess of innovation policy only in this way is rather likedeciding on the success of a trip to the supermarket purelyon the basis of the weight of goods acquired. Similarly, theUK ten-year strategy on science and technology invest-ment framework [18] and the EU Communication onnanotech [19] tend towards a one-dimensional view oftechnology development with gestures towards publicinvolvement and safety issues. In each case, there aresections and sentences that seem quite innovative butoverall the documents convey an impression of surgingahead in the funding race with the public (or ‘consumers’)as an afterthought or as a problem to be sorted out later.This kind of approach is definitely not taking on board the

www.sciencedirect.com

lessons from the GM controversies, which requires a root-and-branch rethink of what is being researched and towhat ends.

Significant amounts of the science and fundamentalresearch under the banner of ‘nanotechnology’ is toospeculative to fit into a box that has its potential usewritten on the lid. However, there is a great deal that hassome intention of a particular end-use behind it. Perhapsevery research result that can be written into a newsreport that reads ‘Scientists have revealed a new break-through that might one day mean that.’ fits into thissecond category. Whenever research is begun or carriedthrough with these end goals in mind, it begs questionsabout why those goals were deemed priorities above otherpossible uses for the research money, other ways of usingthe same science, or other ways of solving the problem thatthe research is ostensibly addressing. Not to mention thequestion of who decided what to pursue and why. Shouldthe chosen end goals of these research priorities not besomething that is open to public scrutiny, debate andprioritization? Or at least be justified against some directdeterminations of public and societal aspirations in the area?

If public sector science is to be responsive to theaspirations of the public (who are, after all, paying for it)then research programmes should be mindful of whatsociety is broadly seeking. Some of the social and environ-mental aspirations held widely by the public are prettywell known. It is now well established that there is ademand for clean, renewable energy [20] and that there isa preference for public health interventions over drugtreatment when people become ill [21]. There is a clearmandate to search out how new science and technology, likenanotech, can contribute. Whether these goals are gettingpriority amongst new nanotech funding is quite hard todetermine but there is little to indicate that they are.

The need for a more direct determination of publicvalues has led several commentators to argue thatengagement with the public needs to move ‘upstream’[22]. The mechanisms could be through consensusconferences or citizens’ juries, or other mechanisms.Although finding the correct mechanism at the correcttime will not always be straightforward, the mostimportant thing is a receptiveness to the outputs fromthese processes by those who will still be charged withtaking the decisions on what research is actuallysupported. This will mean prioritizing some areas ofresearch and, by implication, stopping others†. If thatreceptiveness is not present, public dialogue processes willdo little more than stir up cynicism.

For those sceptical of upstream public engagement,consider the outputs from the first UK consensusconference held a decade ago [23] and before GM foodwas a term familiar to even media correspondents. Theconsensus conference panel said that there needed to belabelling of GM food, choice available to consumers, thatthe ethics and priorities of developing countries need to betaken into account, that patenting needed to be re-examined because of the advantages it gives multinational

Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.23 No.8 August 2005398

organizations, and that the Government should be doingresearch to maximize benefits to all rather than leaving itto companies. Tellingly, they cited expected benefits ofGM crops that are still not in prospect. Think howdifferent the GM food debate in Europe might have beenif those recommendations had been enacted. Instead,when GM food arrived on a large scale, they were ignored.

Conclusions

The prospects for controversies over nanotechnology arehighly dependent on the uses to which it is put.Addressing the underlying governance issues will be ofkey concern. One of the most intelligent ways to addressthis is to dedicate further research to widely shared goalsthat are amenable to technological innovation, such asclimate change, and to take on board the lessons from areal engagement with public concerns. For those involvedin scientific policy making and funding this might beuncomfortable but as recently pointed out in New Scientist‘we cannot carry on ignorantly lurching from one mess tothe next’ [7].

References

1 Cohen, D. (2003) Super-tough nanotube threads created. NewScientist 12 June 2003 (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/tech/article.jsp?idZ99993823&subZNanotechnology)

2 Graham-Rowe, D. (2003) How not to give steel the creeps. NewScientist 19 July 2003, p. 16

3 Wolfe, J. (2003). Big Energy Turns To Tiny Nanotech, Forbes/Wolfereport, 24 July 2003 (http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/2003/07/24/cz_jw_0724soapbox.html)

4 Altmann, J. (2004) Military uses of nanotechnology: perspectives andconcerns. Secur. Dialogue 35, 61–79

5 Hagen, P. (2004) Falling on deaf ears. New Scientist, 28 August 2004,p. 36

6 Wood, S., Jones, R. and Geldart, A. (2003) The Social and EconomicChallenges of Nanotechnology, Economic and Social Research Council(http://www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/DownloadDocs/Nanotechnology.pdf)

7 Anon (2004) Give it to us straight. New Scientist 11 September2004, p. 3

8 Arnall, A. (2003) Future Technologies, Today’s Choice. Nanotechnology,Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; A Technical Political and Insti-tutional Map of Emerging Technologies, Greenpeace EnvironmentalTrust (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm? ucidparamZ20030721113521&menupointZA-L&CFIDZ970981&CFTOKENZ24763425)

9 The White House Office of the Press Secretary (2000) NationalNanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,press release, 21 January 2000 (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000121_4.html)

10 Durant, J. et al. (1998) See the country profiles. In Biotechnology in thePublicSphere: A European Sourcebook (Durant,J.etal., eds),pp.15–177,Science Museum

11 Marris, C. et al. (2002). Public Perceptions of Agricultural

Free journals for dev

The WHO and six medical journal publishers have launched the Acce

poorest countries to gain free access to bio

GroHarlemBrundtland, director-general for theWHO, said that this ini

the health information gap betwe

See http://www.healthinternetwo

www.sciencedirect.com

Biotechnologies in Europe Executive Summary. Commission ofEuropean Community, Contract number: FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12 –SSMI) p. 5 (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs.htm)

12 See for example David Byrne, MEP (2001) Risk versus Benefit, speechto European Voice conference ‘Farm to Fork’, 22 November 2001(http://www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/eu/doc-39.htm)

13 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Setting

Environmental Standards, 21st report, The Stationary Office (http://www.rcep.org.uk/standards.htm)

14 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (2000) Science and

Society, 3rd report 2000–01. The Stationary Office (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm)

15 Grove-White, R. et al. (2000) Wising Up: The Public and New

Technologies, IEPPP, University of Lancaster, Lancaster (http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/ieppp/Home.nsf/0/bb4882920d14f5b880256a6a00401749?OpenDocument)

16 Hansard Column 439WH, (2004) House of Commons debate in West-

minster Hall, Naonotechnology (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040624/hallindx/40624-x.htm)

17 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2004)Nanotechnology: Too little too late? Fifth Report 2003–4. TheStationary Office (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/56/5602.htm)

18 Treasury, H.M. (2004) Science and Innovation Investment Framework

2004–2014, The Stationary Office (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/33A/AB/spend04_sciencedoc_1_090704.pdf)

19 Commission of European Communities (2004) Towards a European

Strategy for Nanotechnology, Communication from the Commission(http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/communication.htm)

20 European Commission Directorate-General for Research (2002)EUROBAROMETER. Energy: Issues, options and Technologies, Scienceand Society EUR 20624 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_169.pdf)

21 Lewis, D.K. et al. (2003) Factors involved in deciding to start pre-ventive treatment; qualitative study of clinicians’ and lay people’sattitudes. Br. Med. J. 327, 1–6

22 Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See through Science: Why Public

Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, Demos (http://www.demos.co.uk/Seethroughsciencefinal_pdf_media_public.aspx)

23 UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology (1994)Final Report, Science Museum

24 Dockery, D.W. et al. (1993) An association between air pollution andmortality in six U.S. cities. N. Engl. J. Med. 329, 1753–1759

25 Hoet, P.H.M. et al. (2004) Nanoparticles – known and unknown healthrisks. J. Nanobiotechnology 2, 12

26 European Commission Community Health and Consumer Protection(2004). Nanotechnologies: A Preliminary Risk Analysis (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf)

27 Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience andnanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS policy docu-ment 19/04 (http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm)

28 Government, H.M. (2005) Response to the Royal Society and Royal

Academy of Engineering Report: Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies:

Opportunities and Uncertainties, Department of Trade and Industry29 Marris, C. et al. (2002) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnol-

ogies in Europe, Final Report of the PABE Research Project. Summary

(http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs.htm)

eloping countries

ss to Research Initiative, which enables nearly 70 of the world’s

medical literature through the Internet.

tiativewas ‘perhaps the biggest step ever taken towards reducing

en rich and poor countries’.

rk.net for more information.