Volume 6, July 1, 2006
www.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl
Nano-Conceptions: A Sociological Insight
of Nanotechnology Conceptions[1]
Gian Carlo Delgado-Ramos[2]
Summary
This
report, which comprises the conceptions of diverse actors involved in
nanotechnology issues, is a product of the Nano-Conceptions
survey carried out on April 2006.
It
aims to provide reliable and first-hand data relating to conceptions held by
certain key ‘stakeholders' concerning the development process of
nanotechnology and its potential social and ethical gaps and implications.
Hence, in order to ‘map’ the sociological context in which
nanotechnology development is embedded, the Report was envisaged as a
‘constructed dialogue’ on the diversity and similarities of points
of views and beliefs of the contributors.
As an analytical tool, it does not
seek to embrace a ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ nanotechnology
position per se. Believing that such
types of contributions are necessary and useful for the enrichment of the
language, knowledge and understanding within a group of actors that feel a
kinship with each other (to some degree or another) but which are not
necessarily helpful for establishing a dialogue between the diverse communities
of actors, the Report presents the conceptions ‘as they are’, leaving
the reader to form her/his own interpretations and opinions.
The main
issues assessed by the Report are: the development pace of nanoscience and
nanotechnology; the constraints, gaps, quality and certainty of nanoscientific
and nanotechnology knowledge; the concerns relating to potential and plausible
social, ethical and environmental impacts; the aspects of military defense and
security nanotechnology applications; the relationship between nanotechnology
and the solution of practical problems in underdeveloped countries; and the
communication proposals among actors and communities for policymaking.
Finally
the Report comes with a draft proposal titled: A Dialogue Methodology for
Policy of Nanotechnology Implications, which could be extended to Converging
Technologies Implications, and other related areas.
This report is expected to contribute to a wider
public understanding of nanosciences and nanotechnologies implications while at
the same time proposing some steps to take in order to move the dialogue and
debate forward.
Introduction
The
report is a product of a survey among diverse actors involved in nanotechnology
issues. Most of them are what we in general tend subjectively to categorize as experts.
The
range of ‘expertise’ has included politicians, scientists,
businessmen, and journalists. The general
public has been considered but as a ‘barometer’ of the social
awareness of nanotechnology implications.
For
methodological and practical purposes, and owing to funding limitations, the Nano-Conceptions survey was implemented
via the Internet through email contact of around 1,500 experts mostly from
Europe, the United States and Japan. A low percentage replied to the survey
(89) and even fewer participated (51). Despite this, it can be said that the
quality of the responses from the participants makes the surveys’ sample
a good one but, certainly, in any case a sufficient one.
Yet,
considering the limited spectrum of the survey, this first approach seems to be
a very useful instrument for an introductory and general appraisal of the
sociological nature of the nano
communities and the diverse groups that can be classified as being in a
dialogue methodology for policymaking. These, in broad terms, are:
-
Natural Sciences
Community
-
Social Sciences Community
-
Government
Community
-
Private Sector
Community
-
And, Society
Every
nano-community (as seen in this report) has an extensive number of ‘clusters’, fields or disciplines
(e.g. Chemistry, Physics; Sociology, Philosophy, Economics; NGOs, Mass media, etc)
that are successively shaped by several ‘sub-clusters’, schools of
thought or particular groups that ‘feel’ a kinship with each other.
Such sub-clusters as representatives of particular conceptions and interests
might differ considerably with each other and may or may not be carriers, in
some degree or another, of hype.
For
example, in the case of nanotechnology’s interpretation, on the one hand,
there is, in broad terms, the mainstream
nanotechnology cluster (or the materials science type of nanotechnology);
and, on the other hand, there is the molecular
manufacturing nanotechnology school of thought (Drexler’s type). The
last one is often identified as a pseudoscience or science fiction even though
its unfeasibility has not yet been scientifically demonstrated (it is well
known that quite a number of scientists –such as Smalley[3]-
consider that there are severe technical and maybe physical restrictions).
It
is important to clarify that in order to avoid any misunderstandings, the term
of ‘stakeholders’ is not used in the report (unless it is in
quotes). This is because, strictly speaking, such a conceptualization might
limit the number of actors to be included since a ‘stakeholder’ must have a
‘stake’-in, and therefore a ‘legitimate’ interest.
Hence, it is a connotation that from a sociological and ethical perspective,
leads us to formulate questions such as: Who is a ‘legitimate
actor‘, and who is not, and to what degree (if any)? What are the
parameters that define and measure it?
Instead, as described above, the report will refer to
‘communities’ and its ‘clusters’ and
‘sub-clusters’ since they seem to be more suitable for our purpose
because they can potentially take into account everyone, including those who do
not have a direct stake; those that might be impacted by, and; those that have
the right to take a position even though they might not be (directly) affected.
Taking
into account this conceptual clarification, and in order to ‘map’
the sociological context in which nanotechnology development is embedded, the
report has been conceived as a ‘constructed dialogue’ and hence
built-up on the diversity and similarities of the points of views and beliefs
of the contributors to the Nano-Conceptions
survey.[4]
How
the conceptions and particular interests of each sub-cluster and cluster are
transforming; how they ‘model’ the advancement and the
characteristics of nanoscience and nanotechnology in one or another direction;
and what the implications are of this (e.g. the institutionalization of
conceptions and interests, etc), are aspects beyond the scope of this Report
even though it is evident that these are key issues which need to be studied
using a profound and detailed sociopolitical insight of nanotechnology
development and its implications.
Instead,
the explanatory purpose is quite limited. The idea is to offer, in one
exercise, some of the main conceptions that are circulating among the
‘experts’ and that mainly dominate the
‘nano debate’. It is evident that the conceptions presented
“are very general first comments” and, as pointed out by Dr. Maj M.
Andersen of the RisØ National Laboratory (Denmark), “…in
all, there is not much new coming out.”
The
Report should thus be seen as an exercise to grasp the range and variety of
general nano-conceptions as such and as a way of recognizing the process in
which these are usually being disseminated from the ‘experts’ arena
and into the public sphere in general.
The
main issues assessed are:
-
Stages of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Development
-
Constraints, Gaps, Quality and Certainty of Nanoscientific and Nanotechnology
Knowledge
- Concerns relating
to Potential and Plausible Environmental, Ethical and Societal Impacts
- Aspects of Military Defense and Security Nanotechnology Applications
- Nanotechnology, Practical Problems and ‘Underdeveloped’
Countries
- Communication Proposals Among Actors and Communities for Policy Making
Therefore,
the Report can be seen as a raw material source for a wider discussion and
evaluation of the aspects and dimensions of the development of nanotechnology
just mentioned –and the like; and not as an evaluation per se.
However,
the discussion and evaluation have to be considered as a relevant
‘must’ not only because the lack of dialogue is costly, but also
because in the very near future we will have to face, not only the
(nano)technological ‘context of justification’, and the
‘context of application’, but the ‘context of
implications’ as well.[5]
An
evaluation effort based on the establishment of a real, serious and active
dialogue seems to be an unavoidable necessity since the public acceptance of
novel technology in general is no longer a trivial thing; rather it is a
prerequisite for the successful implementation of technology.[6] In
this regard, the main worries are related to the kind of nanotechnology that
society needs; and to questions concerning by whom and by which instruments
these areas are being developed and regulated. This means that future
consequences of nanotechnology (and indeed of converging technologies) are increasingly becoming relevant. Key
issues include the ‘distribution of risk’, as well as economical
and political justice and power affairs within international, regional and
national spheres.
A
major reflection should then be made because, “…scientific and
technological innovation has the fundamental characteristic of being
unpredictable in the sense that the results are in principle unknown until they
are found.”[7]
If
nanotechnology is considered to be a powerfully transformative technology, then
“…it is critical to understand where this technology is coming from
and where it is going”.[8]
Analytical clarity is crucial in order to advise policy makers properly.
Presently there
is widespread confusion between the reality of nanotechnologies (in the short
term), their potential (in the medium and long term) and the
‘stuff’ of science fiction,
and not only on the part of the general public.[9]
Similarly, there seems to be some naïve suppositions ‘out
there’ regarding certain social and ethical aspects of nanotechnology,
specially a naïve assumption of a context of power-relations emptiness and
therefore of class conflicts.
Hence,
this report on a Sociological Insight of
Nanotechnology Conceptions expects to contribute with the current debate
while clarifying some delusions and at the same time by taking the dialogue
forward by proposing ‘A Dialogue Methodology for Policy of Nanotechnology
Implications.[10]
Finally,
it is important to state that this report does not intend to take a
‘pro’ or ‘anti’ nanotechnology position per se.[11]
Believing that such types of contributions are necessary and useful for the
enrichment of the language, knowledge and understanding within a cluster or in
similar clusters, as well as for sociopolitical activism, yet that they are not
necessarily helpful for establishing a dialogue between the diverse communities
and actors, the report presents the conceptions ‘as they are’,
letting the reader to form his/her own interpretations and opinions.
However,
this does not mean that the way this text has been configured is completely
free of the author’s values and conceptions.
Stages of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology
Development
There
is as much difference between nanoscience and nanotechnology as there are among
concepts and reality; asserts Prof. Olivier Vanbésien, director of the
CNRS research group on Nanoelectronics at the University of Sciences and
Technologies of Lille (France). In other words, he clarifies: “…[on
the first level] the imagination allow us to conceive all the types of nanoobjects,
the potential applications of those nanoobjects in domains equally variable
such as medicine, biology or telecommunications…on the second level,
researchers envision the fabrication and identify the technological locks to be
overcome for the ‘real’ fabrication of objects. The time needed to
go from the concepts to the reality is very difficult to quantify.”
Hence,
at this early stage, Dr. Patrick Lin research director of The Nanoethics Group
(US), suggests that both nanoscience and nanotechnology seem to be closely
related, so much of that current research appears to fall into both categories.
He then adds: “…there is definitely a sense that nanotechnology
will be a lucrative market, so naturally there is a strong focus on productizing
or finding practical applications for nanotech. However, because so much of
nanotechnology depends on nanoscience (where revenue streams are less clear,
longer term, and mired in IP issues), the limiting factor may be how quickly
researchers, mostly in academic centers, can develop the basic science
–which in turn is partly limited by funding.” For instance Clive
Ireland, founder of Advanced Optical Technology Ltd (UK), deems that
nanotechnology “…is a fashionable area [yet] driven by academic/institutes
R&D and probably too much government money.” The incongruity is that
nanotechnology R&D usually requires costly infrastructure that cannot be
afforded by small and medium sized enterprises (at least in most cases of
leading R&D).
Besides,
the nanotechnology market is still dominated by luxury goods, as asserted by
some ‘experts’, although this is a tendency that is expected to
change. Dr. David Berube from the University of South Carolina, communications
director at the International Council on Nanotechnology (US) and author of Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind The
Nanotechnology Buzz, believes that, “…this will change soon as
new materials in defense and energy begin to emerge, and within a few years, in
medical applications as well.”
The
general concurrence is that nanoscience is ahead of nanotechnology, yet
conversely there are big disparities on what everyone means with each
particular concept. This has been the main dilemma identified when trying to
outline the pace of nanoscience and nanotechnology R&D, which brought out
two interesting aspects:
a) The size feature (below 100 nanometers) has not
resolved the ‘overlapping’ conflict between old disciplines and new
ones.
For
example there are some observations that nanochemistry is simply chemistry (or
supramolecular chemistry) –namely the chemistry of atoms and molecules;
nonetheless, for Dr. Geoffrey Ozin from the University of Toronto (Canada) and
co-author with André Arsenault of the book Nanochemestry: A Chemical Approach to Nanomaterials, this is not
quite correct and it is an issue worthy of further debate. When asked about
what makes nanochemistry ‘nano’, he stated that,
“…nanochemistry is the Chemistry of diverse kinds of nanoscale
building blocks [...which] are much larger than atoms and molecules, and span
fully the three orders of magnitude between nanometers and micrometers, which
by definition encompass the nanoscale size range. In fact, the building blocks
of Nanochemistry may not even be molecular - they can be fashioned from
nanoscale pieces of metals, semiconductors and insulators, or made of nanoscale
macromolecules and bio-molecules.” Thus, a more precise definition of
nanochemistry, he concludes, might be, “…a chemical approach to
nanomaterials”.
A
similar dispute was registered in the early 1990’s, as recalled by Dr.
Roger Strand, director of the Center for the Studies of the Sciences and the
Humanities at the University of Bergen (Norway), with the case of molecular
biology and functional genomics.
One
successful transformation –or at least more subtle- is the one
experimented by the field of photonics, lately renamed as
‘nanophotonics’. As stated by Dr. Aasmund SudbØ from the
University of Oslo and the University Graduate Center at Kjeller (Norway),
“…nanophotonics, both science and technology, became mainstream
photonics long before the term was invented and the development pace has been
steady and reasonably predictable”.
Such
co-existence of what I call ‘mother’ and ‘(nano)child’
disciplines or, in the words of Prof. Mark Welland of the Nanoscience Centre,
University of Cambridge (UK), the “weakness at the boundaries between
established disciplines”, has taken philosopher Ashely Shew of the
Virginia Tech in Blacksburg (US) to inquire “…whether there is such
a thing as nanoscientific/technological knowledge, or whether there is
knowledge from a few disciplines about the same scale.”
It
is an interesting viewpoint that perhaps is better comprehended when
nanotechnology is seen not as a “single technology” but as the
leading technological niche that pushes ahead “…the transformation
of the ‘technology as a whole’ by subjecting almost every field to
techniques of molecular analysis, characterization and manipulation”;
says Niels Boeing of BitFaction
(Germany). From that perspective, Boeing guesses that, “…in 30
years the term of nanotechnology will be superfluous because it has become
evident that some molecular process is involved”.
Thus,
it could be stated that nanotechnology and the rest of the so-called converging technologies (either the
US’ NBIC, the European’s CTs, or other versions)[12]
are an outcome of the type and inherent logic of modern technology development
as a whole rather than a mere natural and spontaneous process of convergence.
b)
The divergence of nanotechnology
operative perspectives beyond the top-down and bottom-up approaches is a
permanent compelling disagreement between the ‘mainstream nanotechnology
cluster’ and the one of ‘molecular manufacturing
nanotechnology’.
Thus,
in order to avoid the escalation of public misapprehension and refusal of
nanotechnology as a whole (as well as avoiding the hype) the conflict has been
temporarily ‘resolved’ (either deliberately or unconsciously) by a
couple of mechanisms. One method is by categorizing molecular manufacture nanotechnology
as an impossible quest and therefore as science fiction (at least until it may
prove ‘itself’ to be a real possibility). And, on the other hand,
and particularly in the United States, by consistently clarifying the existence
of at least two types of nanotechnologies.
In this regard, Ashley Shew observes that,
“…nanoscience and nanotechnology development differ depending on
the specialty and context and what you count as nanotechnology…there is
more than one nanotechnology right now. Drexler and his associates seem to be
talking past the scientific nanotechnological community much of the time
because their concerns are about a different type of nanotechnology than that
which Smalley and other address. The concerns stemming from these two
understandings are very different.”
Constraints, Gaps,
Quality and Certainty of Nanoscientific
and
Nanotechnology Knowledge
The
Constraints
“…A condition imposed on a system which limits the
freedom of the system; may be physical or mathematical, necessary or incidental.”
McGraw-Hill’s Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms.
Imagining a nanometer is easier when it is compared with other objects
such as cells (relative measures) but it becomes nearly impossible when one
tries to do it in absolute terms. In fact scientists do not ‘see’
atoms with their naked eyes. Instead they ‘define’ atoms’
shapes and their arrangements by using electron beams, in addition, the details
can only be visualized indirectly (in the best case). However, for Dr.
Jürgen Altmann of the Experimentelle Physik III at Dortmund (Germany),
“…visualizing atoms is easy nowadays with various atomic-probe
microscopes which use either a current or forces.”
Yet
with regard to subatomic particles the issue does not seem as simple. For that
reason Dr. SudbØ with 20 year of experience on the field, is aware that
“…the central gap in nanophotonics is precisely the quest for
nanometer resolution in optical lithography.” But, on the contrary Dr.
Altmann remarks that, “…the lithography
gap mentioned by Dr. SudbØ is not
directly related to this [visualizing at a nanometer resolution] –it is
about structuring masks, etc., at tens of nanometers (nm) whereas atoms (with
tenths of nm) can already be seen by other methods.”
Dr. SudbØ replies by
stating that considering that, “…every
scientific community [or cluster and sub-cluster] has its own definition of
nanoscience and nanotechnology…the central gap in nanophotonics…at
the same time, it is one of the most serious potential showstoppers for the
microelectronics industry today, and [thus] there is an international army of
scientists and engineers working very hard to close it.”
Besides
the differences (and also because of them) the constraints seem to be clearly
there –either of technical and/or methodological nature. That explains in
part why there are major efforts being carried out for the improvement of such
a details’ visualization by extending the range of X-rays; for example at
the Linac Coherent Light Source (Stanford Accelerator Center) in California
(US) or the German Electron Synchrotron research center in Hamburg (Germany).[13]
Hence,
it can be said that scientists are limited to experience and manipulate the
nanoworld through instruments that make things look bigger/different.
“Nanoobjects cannot be handled directly by hand, an intermediate tool is
needed to do it”, says Didier Theron of the CNRS – Institut
d’Electronique de Microélectronique et de Nanotechnologie
(France). And he adds: “…the development of such tools is part of
the research process”.
So,
if we take into account that it is well known that for instruments like the Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM),
both external and internal vibration are a problem[14],
then we could say that there is a fundamental constraint on nanoscience and
nanotechnology knowledge as “…it is clear that the set of
quantitative readings taken by the experimental apparatus cannot be considered
independently of the interpretation put on them…Although tools are
auxiliary to the advancement of scientific knowledge, their influence on the
directions of work done is important and frequently decisive.”[15]
This does not mean that the nano-instrumentation is useless, on the contrary;
it just denotes that the readings, and thus the results, are highly dependent
on the interpretation and on the effective worthlessness of the error factor
caused by externalities such as vibration (an externality that for Dr. Altmann
can be handled quite well).
Hitherto,
the high degree of complexity and uncertainty that govern the world at the
nanoscale level both in time and space (namely the principles of quantum
physics), nanoscience and nanotechnology constraints are being identified by
many members of the scientific community as being no different from any other.
The Gaps
Contrary
to other cases, says Prof. Arturo López-Quintela of the Department of
Physical Chemistry at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain),
“…the theoretical background, which usually is assumed to be known,
in this case is different, and many properties of the materials at this level
are practically unknown and therefore not always predictable.”
Nevertheless,
it is a lack of knowledge that is commonly surpassed by technical knowledge
gaps. Dr. Vanbésien estimates that, “…technological locks
are mainly of technical type because in general terms the theoretical problems
are solved before the technological lock.” Of course, he adds,
“…there are exceptions such as quantum informatics where
researchers propose objects that might support quantum calculations while
theorists are still discussing the viability of certain concepts”.
Considering
the presence of both types of gaps, common in all S&T fields, even though
in different proportions (and variable for each discipline), Dr. Ramón
Compañó of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
(DG Joint Research Centre - European Commission) indicates, for example, that
adequate modeling at the meso-scale is a notorious theoretical gap, while the
need of high throughput instrumentation and mass scale devices are illustrations
of experimental gaps.
Others,
as seen by Dr. Theron, are a result of the fact that handling nanoobjects is
difficult and requires new instrumentation tools yet to be developed; that the
nanoobjects handle nano signals; that parasitics coming from the environment
must be carefully controlled; and that the connection of nanoobjects to the
outside world [at the macro level] has not been resolved.
That
last gap has been a point of concurrence for most of the experts, particularly
those from the natural science community or those who are actually manipulating
matter. This is supposed to be relevant because, as Dr. Juan Carlos
Rodríguez-Cabello of the Mineralogy, Crystallography and Condensed
Matter Physics Department – University of Valladolid (Spain) says: “…self-assembling
must play a decisive role in the future nanotechnology and still a lot of
effort must be applied to understand the basis of this phenomenon and its
rationalization.” The gap is of major order and it is in some way recognized
by Dr. Rodríguez-Cabello himself: “…as an specialist in soft
nanotechnology, I would say that our ability to produce highly functional
molecules with potential to trigger a hierarchical organization through
different length scales is not enough today. We need to synthesize extremely
complex and well-defined (macro)molecules that in most cases are well beyond
the reach of conventional chemistry even by advanced chemistry.”
Niels
Boeing, who has been paying attention to the issue and talking with experts,
believes that, “…at the moment there seems to be no clear path how
to complement self-assembly by a new artificial integration mechanisms [until
now it has been dealing with bio/chemistry self-assembly]. Even in DNA scaffold
construction a lot of auxiliary chemistry is involved and the process is not
very precise (based on what experts like Dr. Ned Seeman told me).” And
makes clear: “…I would not dare to say that overcoming the
integration problem is not feasible. However, I personally doubt whether the
concept of molecular [manufacturing] nanotechnology as proposed by Drexler,
Merkle, Freitas et al can ever be put
into practice due the chicken-egg-problem that you need an assembler to build
the first assembler. I don’t believe that it can be done in a step
process as suggested by Freitas in a reasonable time span.”
That
which is mentioned above is more a debate on “…all those things
which one would wish to have but have not yet been achieved”, as it is
accurately set by Dr. Altmann (Germany) who adds: “…one glaring gap
is the failure of the mainstream scientific community to scientifically analyze
the feasibility of ‘molecular [manufacturing]
nanotechnology’.” A context in which of course, molecular
nanotechnology discussion is somewhat different from the gap discussion, as Dr.
Altmann further clarifies.
From
the aforementioned, it can then be said that along with the gap in the
definition of the actual ‘point’ where properties change relative
to size, the connection between the nano/micro and macro worlds probably emerges
as “the” major gap.
Moreover,
other additional gaps quite different in nature but no less important are those
related to the unknown effects upon human health and the environment. In other
words, a lack of knowledge of all those ‘things’ that the scientist
community should/must seriously close the gap on, within the shortest possible
time, in order to avoid unnecessary risks.
For
Dr. Paulo Martins from the Institute of Technological Research (Brazil), it is
a circumstance in which, “…there are theoretical problems related
to the ‘construction of a new nature’ in the sense that we are
placing into the environment structures that do not exist in the natural
ecosystems while we lack of a theoretical approach to take into account the
complexity of the issue.”
Nora
Savage, an environmental engineer at the Environmental Protection Agency (US)
acknowledges that: “…compounds for which we have toxicological,
fate/transport, or bioaccumulation/bioavailability data may have to be
reassessed due to the fact that at the nanoscale, chemical and physical
properties are often drastically altered […] We are just at the beginning
of our knowledge base in this field…we are learning that: 1) these
materials need to be well characterized and standardized so that research results
can be compared; 2) using engineered nanomaterials may not be as appropriate as
examining the consumer products in which they are incorporated; and 3) it is
not enough to state that engineered nanomaterials embedded or fixed in a matrix
poses no environmental or human hazard –the end of the product needs to
be considered, if the product is burned, placed in a landfill with reactive
liquids and gases, recycled, etcetera.”
On
the other side of the Atlantic, Dr. Altmann agrees: “…Concerning
fates and effects of nanoparticles in the body and the environment, there is an
obvious (and generally acknowledge) lack of acknowledged; all the more
remarkable is the fact that nanoparticles are being put into consumer products
relying just on the licensing for the material, even though every overview
article states that: 1) at the nanoscale matter shows different properties;
and, 2) nanoparticles can enter through pores where larger ones cannot.”
Kathy
Jo Wetter from ETC Group (Canada), one of the most active actors of the society
community, coincides by arguing that “…nanoscience and
nanotechnology are developing in a regulatory vacuum and therefore any pace of
its development is inappropriate until best practices (for nanoscience) and
government regulations (on the products of nanotechnology) are put in place
[…As] science and technology must be guided by the Precautionary
Principle […] scientists and regulators should be able to quickly
establish safety standards and mechanisms for monitoring and then the development
of nanoscience and nanotechnology could continue.” Thus, says Dr. Wetter,
it is urgent that we fill the gaps in, “…the understanding of
toxicology of nanoparticles in both the short and long-term, and the
standarization measurement and nomenclature of nanoparticles.”
From
the social community, Dr. Berube describes what he perceives as
quasi-scientific gaps. For example, he writes, “…unless we can get
a handle on classification and nomenclature the regulatory dynamics of all
things nano will be especially challenging. The other gaps have to do with
markets and consumer willingness to buy into nano; especially when the first
products will carry a research surcharge of sorts and will be more expensive
than competing products […] It is interesting to ponder how that
phenomenon might impact the development of new technologies.” Expressed
in a differently, “…there are technological and economical
difficulties to move the fabrication processes of nanosystems from the lab to
industry”, says Prof. Juan Irache from the University of Navarra (Spain).
The
concern is mutual for Dr. Bikram Lamba director of Toronto Management
Consultants - Tormacon Limited (Canada). He declares that: “…the
gaps are essentially between commercial exploitation of technology. All development
is basically at the lab level. There is need to upgrade it to commercial level,
to have all benefits […] Organizations like Tormacon can help identify
appropriate commercial partners […] and be used as a coordinating
agency.”
From
a different perspective, Dr. Guillermo Foladori of the University of Zacatecas
(Mexico) and member of the International
Nanotechnology and Society Network senses that, “…following the
technical characteristics it will probably be the industrial revolution with
the most uncertainties and unknown outcomes in human history. The main gap is a
reduced reduce interest or a lack of public funding in following scientific and
technical advances with philosophical, political and social discussion.”
The Quality
and Certainty
Dr.
Theron (France) seems to be cautious about the quality and certainty of
nanoscience and nanotechnology knowledge when calling the attention to the
well-known possibility that, “…competition for industrial
achievement increases the risk of cheating.” Still, he believes that the
quality and certainty of nanoscience and nanotechnology knowledge do not have a priori
difference with other fields of science. It is just new and not mature
enough, he says.
Additionally,
the reality of upcoming risky and unnecessary situations is recognized mainly
because of the rush and lack of
caution on the part of some actors from the private sector community when
“trying to capture the market value of nano” while ultimately
affecting the public conception of the quality and certainty of nanoscience and
nanotechnology knowledge and thus of nanotechnology as a whole. That seems to
be true in the case of Kleinmann household cleaning spray.[16]
Unfortunately,
asserts Dr. Berube, “…the Kleinmann magic nano product produced
some bad press for the industry. Given we still do not know whether
nanoparticles were in the aerosol and Kleinmann seemed unaware of the
Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) research done on the components of its
own product and the seal of approval seemed to have been used improperly, we
must consider that some companies may be acting in haste to capture the market
value of nano without full consideration of EHS implications and that is a real
problem.”
On
the same train of thought, Prof. Welland (University of Cambridge) declares:
“…In the headlong rush to capitalize on both nanoscience and
nanotechnology quality and scientific rigour is
certainly suffering.”
Thus,
in the modern S&T history the time
variable once again proves to be a key component –among others of technical
and sociopolitical nature- that affects the quality and certainty, in this
case, of nanoscience and nanotechnology knowledge and consequently of the
public confidence in nanotechnology innovations.
How
can the quality of S&T knowledge be ‘protected’ from variables
different than those of a scientific and technical nature?
Concerns related to
Potential and Plausible Environmental,
Ethical and Societal Impacts
Most
applications have and will have some kind of impacts; otherwise, states Dr. Lin
(Nanoethics Group, US), what’s the point of creating them?
Accordingly,
many of these potential social, ethical and environmental impacts (good, bad
and/or ambiguous) have been addressed
by reports from the government community[17],
insurance companies[18],
NGO[19],
and other entities.[20]
It
is a context in which for Dr. Lin, “…even the simple nanotechnology
products today (such as using nanomaterials in golf balls or cosmetics) raise
manufacturing and consumer safety issues, in addition to environmental concerns
[…Yet] in the near future, the impact will shift more to societal and
ethical areas, such as privacy from virtually invisible surveillance devices or
new treatments that change how we view medicine.”
And
certainly, the environmental aspect of nanomaterials is an issue that has taken
(for the moment) the center-stage or, in other words, it is the one that has
been broadly discussed.
For
instance, along with the previously mentioned words of environmental engineer
Savage from the EPA (US), Dr. Kayori Shimada from the National Metrology
Institute of Japan (part of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology) adds that a potential concern is “…the
trapping technology of nanoparticles. Nanoparticles in the air are sometimes
dangerous but the trapping of nanoparticles is enable by nanotechnology.”
Also,
Dr. Berube (USC, US) states: “…we need life cycle studies,
especially with disposal and incineration. We need comparative risk assessments
since nanoparticles with some drawbacks might be a lot better that what we are
currently using, and we need a better understanding about whether green nano is
as green as it is touted to be.”
Such
‘green-hype’ of
nanotechnology, as I call it, is an issue that in fact Volker Türk,
project coordinator at the Sustainable Production and Consumption Department of
the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Energy and Environment (Germany),
reasonably queries on the following terms: “…Many argue that
nano-application will help to increase resource efficiency but this is not
necessarily the case. Resources are the backbone of every economy. In using
resources and transforming them, products are produced, infrastructures built
up and values created […] Small does not
necessarily mean little resource use, in particular as long as we use top-down
technologies, in which bulk materials are processed down to the nano-level. One
must consider the entire life cycle to assess the resource efficiency,
including the use phase. If nanomaterials are used to produce catalytic materials
or surfaces, then those might be more resource intensive to produce and we
might not be able to re-capture those particles in the disposal phase, but
these nanomaterials might help to reduce the energy and resource use for
various processes in their use phase. So only if you look at it along the
life-cycle, comparing in this case the resource intensity in the production
phase with the potential resource savings in the use phase, one will be able to
judge on the overall potential.” And he concludes: “…[already]
first studies on nanotech applications show that these are not necessarily
contributing to an increased resource efficiency. In particular the use of
high-processed materials and precious metals is an issue that should be look
at.”
For
instance, I believe that evaluations from an Ecological Economics and an Industrial
Ecology perspective, and the like, could be very useful as they could take
into account the (nano)materials and energy flows, as well as the waste and
recycle processes (see Image 1).[21]
Furthermore,
other aspects remarked by the majority of participants of the Nano Conceptions survey can be summarize
as follows: health risks for workers during new
production processes; introduction of free nanoparticles into the environment
and as a route for human exposure along with a largely inadequate response from
Governments to commission toxicology studies; environmental problems from
large-scale production; difficult-to-recycle nanocomposites; ethical aspects
pertaining point-of-care medical diagnostics, treatments and implants; new
products that change the face of industry; glutted markets, upheaval of the
global financial/manufacturing system; significantly reduced employment
opportunities for less skilled labor, unequal distribution of benefits and
wealth (e.g., in medicine), ‘nano divide’, equity disputes about
intellectual property rights, conflicts of interest in
university–industry relations; invisible intelligence gathering devices,
covert activities; invasion of privacy and of the human body without the
individual’s consent; security and safety of persons; super intelligent,
virtually invisible devices from nanotechnology combined with artificial
intelligence; nanoweapons, artificial viruses and bacteria, controlled
biological and nerve agents; etc.[22]
Among
the long-term-vision-implications, Dr. Vanbésien (France) says that,
“…the ultra-positive aspects are the medicine and healthcare
applications which are going to benefit greatly with the development of the
nanosciences and nanotechnologies. In a more ambiguous way, the
‘manipulation’ of the intrinsic properties of matter (genetic
applications) remains as a major open-problem that will need a long and
extensive debate between specialists and non-specialists.”
Even
so, Dr. López-Quintana (Spain) believes that, “…from a
scientific point of view there is a priori
no difference between nanotechnology and technology […since] All of them
nano and micro/macro technologies have similar impacts.” Dr. Lamba
(Tormacon Ltd) seems to agree by saying that “…there is no evidence
of such parameters [social, ethical and environmental implications] affecting
nanotech research.” As well does Dr. David Parker, director of Parker
Consultancy Ltd (UK) also believes that nanotechnology, “…is just
another technology and should be treated no differently than other
technological areas.”
Likewise,
Dr. Michael Veith from the Leibniz Institute for New Materials (Germany)
considers that in fact, “…nanotechnology will have an impact on our
life, but perhaps less dramatically as it is usually thought”; whilst Dr.
Irache (Spain) still feels that, “…the potential could be immense
but it is just a potential. Nowadays there is practically nothing.”
Even
more far-reaching, Dr. Rodríguez-Cabello (University of Valladolid) has
sustained that: “…there is no real negative ethical or
environmental impacts. On the contrary, nanotechnology will bring important and
deep environmental and social advances.”
Instead,
Savage (EPA, US) considers that “…it is too early, and hence unwise,
to make such predictions [on nanotechnology implications] until our knowledge
base has greatly increased.”
On
this same track, some experts have considered that nanotechnology-related
concerns are over-rated especially when the time to the market in most cases
will be rather long. Others, in what appears to be a discrepant position, have
indicated when speculating on the reasons for the lack of dialogue and
measures-taken (related to such concerns) that, if we’re talking about
business, the discussion of these issues may scare off investors as well as
cause more regulation to be enacted, which is a barrier to the corporate goal
of selling more products in the marketplace.
Dr.
Foladori, editor with Noela Invernizzi of the book Disruptive Nanotechnologies – The Social Impacts of
Nanotechnologies, disagrees. He believes that only the impacts that can be
observed immediately will be avoided, probably on environmental and health
risks. In social and economics impacts nothing will be done, he adds, since:
“…a) nanotechnology is seen as a panacea for meliorate
competitiveness, and this is considered good by itself; b) as business and
scientific groups see nanotechnology as a road to improve their position, the
philosophy is ‘it is to early to discuss about implications…we
better wait till things are consolidated’. This position avoids public
concern and participation, as well as new incomers bargaining for
research.”
Dr.
Wetter (ETC Group) also thinks that there are some serious social and ethical
impacts that have yet to be considered.
And exemplifies: “…the impacts and ethics of patenting the
fundamental building blocks of nature, the impacts of new nanomaterials on
conventional commodity markets (and on the economies of commodity dependent
developing countries), the impacts of ‘enhancement’ technologies on
the rights of the disabled and the potential impacts of nano-scale technologies
on democracy and dissent.”
It
is important to note that independently of the differing positions and the
notorious mixture of aspects of the previously mentioned concerns, is the
degree to which the potentiality of nanotechnology is revealed while forcing us
to identify the diverse levels of implications not only of nanotechnology as a
whole but of the applications of nanotechnology in particular. Biochemist Dr.
Gregor Wolbring of the University of Calgary (Canada) seems to concur as he
thinks that, “…every nano application leads to different concerns
with different impacts and different regulations. Most products are not discussed
in general and in particular settings.”
Boeing
advocates that in order to confront this complexity, “…we should
implement [as a starting point] a classification into 1. contained
nanotechnology, 2. a) non-intentionally bioactive and b) intentionally bioactive
nanotechnology, and 3. disruptive nanotechnologies” (where he puts
molecular nanotechnology meaning autonomous nano-agents like assemblers or
artificial viruses/bacteria). He then adds, “…at least the last
should be banned [referring to artificial virus/bacteria]”.
Additionally,
thinking on molecular manufacturing nanotechnology feasibility, Mike Treder,
executive director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (US) has
declared: “…It is urgent to understand numerous issues
–environmental, economic, military, geopolitical, humanitarian, social
and technologically related to an advanced form of nanotechnology, molecular
manufacturing- to prepare for its likely development sometime in the near
future…This technology could develop too rapidly for reactive policy to
succeed…it will be more powerful than most people will be able to
comprehend without serious study. Molecular manufacturing, along with other
technologies that it will enhance or enable, will create new problems and new
opportunities that require new solutions. To date, there has not been anything
approaching an adequate study of these issues. Today the pace of technical
advancement is far ahead of studying and preparing for societal and
environmental impacts of technology. Unless this balance is corrected, we will
enter the future unable to effectively and responsibly manage the tremendous
power being unleashed by nanotechnology. We may have only one chance to get it
right.”
Aspects of Military Defense and Security Nanotechnologies Applications
Questions
relating to the use of nanotechnology for the purposes of military defense and
security were fairly extensive. Only a few actors from the corporate and
policymakers’ clusters explicitly evaded putting forth their position
publicly, while not a single reply from the military and security research
agencies’ cluster was received (among more than a hundred).
It
is an issue of public concern usually plagued of a peculiar (but militarily
understandable) secrecy which most of the time shields it and sets it away from
any deep public regulation, at least regarding its societal and ethical
implications. As Dr. Altmann (U of Dortmund, Germany) puts it: “…Military applications are mostly left out of technology
assessment, societal implications analyses, etc. This is particularly worrisome
since the military will prepare the very destructive uses [of nanotechnology]
that one normally would like to prevent by all means (and there may be
destabilization, proliferation, new terrorist threats, and general dangers for
humans and society)…The argument that not much is known about military
uses is no longer valid.” And remarks: “…a variety of views
makes this issue contentious. The US National Nanotechnology Initiative has a
large military share that mostly stated is the narrow view that US
technological superiority is good – neglecting interactions in the
international system, potential future threats from terrorist attacks, etc. EU
Nanotechnology Programmes have no room for considering peace-endangering aspects
up to now.”
In
this context, Dr. SudbØ (Norway) has said: “…there is always
a need for public regulation of defense and security”. Dr. Shimada
(Japan) added, “…it is important to have common sense in this
problem”.
Dr.
Julián González-Estévez from the Applied Physics
Department at the University of the Basque Country (Spain) also expressed:
“…I am favorable and I consider that particular regulation should
be developed according to the new advances.”
A
similar position for a “need of certain regulations” was suggested
by Dr. Rosa M. de la Cruz from the Physics Department of de University Carlos
III (Madrid, Spain); Dr. Wolbring (University of Calgary); Boeing (Germany),
Dr. Vanbésien (France); among others.
ETC Group’s Dr. Wetter concurred:
“…there is need for regulations on defense and security
applications of nanotechnology. Beyond obvious threats to human life and the
environment from new chemical, biological or conventional weapons developed
using nanotechnologies, there are also threats to privacy (from nano-scale
sensor applications) and to democracy and dissent.”
Likewise
Dr. Theron (France) acknowledged: “…impacts of nanotechnology can
be huge and specific regulations will be necessary. Nanotechnology will enhance
defense and security capability but might also be used to control human
activity. Therefore political aspects might be the most important.”
Philosopher
Shew (Virginia Tech, US) even specified: “…our current laws about
spying and intrusion may need to be strengthened or modified, but I think we
can deal with security issues in relation to nanotechnology rather
‘easily’. On the contrary, military defense issues are always going
to be problematic. Nanotechnology might just make things harder to detect, but
the socio-ethical aspects of defense will remain the same. We will still have
the same concerns about when use of weapons is justified, whether if is alright
to target civilians, etc.”
Dr.
Savage (EPA, US) considered that in fact: “…there will be definite ethical issues related to the development of
weapons, as there always are. How
these concerns can be addressed in a world where military power is aggressively
sought after and tenaciously held, is another matter. In addition, the secrecy surrounding
many military applications, for any technology not just nano, renders it more
than difficult to asses how these developments might pose ethical questions,
who is best positioned to deal with them and what potential solutions might be
developed.”
Considering
that US is at the head of military nano R&D spending worldwide, Dr.
Foladori’s impression is that, “…the US is interested in
finding a way of going to war ‘without’ casualties. But the more
unequal the war technological equipment, the response will be more brutal, full
of terror and radical. This is an endless road of surveillance and
terrorism.” And he concludes: “…The idea under an endless
techno war development is that enemies could be reduced technically. This shows
an egocentric superiority ethical position than underscores social problems and
continuates the imperialist ideology.”
Dr.
Berube (USC, US) expressed a comparable concern but in a more conservative way.
He said: “…I have expressed concern that as our soldiers and war
fighting becomes less expensive to us in terms of losses, it makes the decision
to fight easier to make and that shift in thinking about war fighting troubles
me.”
Furthermore,
Treder (CRN, US) presages that, “…the most threatening and least
understood danger is nanotech-enabled war. The massive increase in weapons
potential that molecular manufacturing will offer could rapidly shift and
destabilize present balances of power. All-out war between two or more rivals
is a real danger, as is the possibility of one nation or group rising to global
dominance; nano-tyranny could be very
ugly indeed.”
The
warning of Dr. Lin (Nanoethics Group, US) is then worth of double notice:
“…if we can learn from history, we seem
to be at an important point in science history where we are potentially opening
another Pandora's Box (with splitting the atom as the first box), particularly
if we're harnessing nanotechnology for destructive, rather than constructive,
ends. Military research is a
slippery slope and can lead to an arms race, so national exuberance in this
area should be kept in check with sound foreign policy that encourages
understanding, dialogue and diplomatic resolutions, instead of mistrust and
uncompromising stances that lead to an arms build-up.” Treder is
also in agreement as he indicates that: “…it appears that some kind
of responsible, enforceable, transparent international treaty regime may be a
necessity.” This is also supported by Dr. Thomas Ilfrich (Ivcon, Germany)
who proposes on his edited book, Nano +
Mikrotec II, an International Nanotechnology Agency (INA),
“…responsible for friendly cooperation and coordination of
nanotechnology research and international control.” It is the idea, he
says, of Geoffrey Hunt from the European Institute of Health & Medical
Sciences, University of Surrey) who spoke about an INA in Tokyo in July 2003.
In
this context perhaps one of the most precise and defined proposals is the one
offered by Dr. Altmann who has been working the issue for several years now. In
his latest book, Military Nanotechnology:
Potential Applications And Preventive Arms Control, he marked eight special areas and proposed how appropriate
preventive limits could be designed and compliance verified. Those areas are:
- Ban on self-contained sensor systems below 3-5
cm
- Ban on small arms, light weapons and munitions
that contain no metal [because of its undetectability with present
equipment].
3.
Ban on missiles below 0.2-0.5 m
4.
Moratorium on non-medical body implants,
body manipulation
- Ban on re-usable armed, mobile systems without
crew; at least no aiming and weapon release without human decision
- Ban on mobile (partly) artificial systems below
0.2-0.5 m
- Comprehensive ban on space weapons [related to
micro-nanosatellites]
- Uphold and strengthen Chemical Weapons
Convention, Biological Weapons Convention
Many other military applications, clarifies Dr. Altmann, pose no
great risks or would be so close to civilian applications that limitation would
be unrealistic. Nonetheless, very few applications could act positively (e.g.
better sensors for biological weapons).
Finally, he adds that, “…the international dialogue on
responsible R&D of nanotechnology would be a natural place for debates
about such limits, but at least for the time being this does not seem
possible.”
In general, Altmann remarks, “…in some countries a
problematic narrow view of national security from officials, defense
planners/researchers, etc., needs to be questioned, optimally by scientists
within the country.”
This might be particularly needed in the US where unilateralism
has characterized the stance of the current US administration towards the
ratification of several international agreements.[23]
Nanotechnology,
Practical Problems and ‘Underdeveloped’ Countries
Most ‘experts’ agree that nanotechnology
has the potential to solve a number of practical problems, but not all seem to
be sure whether the ‘underdeveloped world’ -as it is tagged- is
going to receive the “fruits of nanotechnology” and, if so, to what
degree.
Therefore the question is whether these technical
solutions will be available for poorer countries, both in terms of price as
well as the knowledge that is required to work, operate and develop them;
inquires Türk (Wuppertal Institute, Germany).
Philosopher Shew (Virginia Tech, US) believes in this
respect that, “…technologies rarely provide for the simple fix we
would like. Instead, careful attention to the locality of situations is
necessary for the proper deployment of technology in underdeveloped areas.
Socio-technical problems with nanotechnology will have to be solved before the
technology can be used in practice. If nanotechnology will have potential for
these areas, it might first be in the area of water purification. Other
examples of nanotechnology may have more complications in being developed to
suit a purpose for an underdeveloped country. Our track record when it comes to
the adaptation of technology for places where we are not from is mixed, so I
would be cautious in saying that we're going to solve a whole bunch of
practical problems in underdeveloped countries with nanotechnology any time
soon.”
Dr. Berube (USC, US) some what agrees as he thinks
that nanotechnology “…behooves us to solve problems rather than to
use the developing world as a justification for our own self-serving policies.
Simply put, clean water would be desirable but we need to not only research and
develop the technology, we must find a way to implement it so it can have an
impact in developing countries. Unfortunately, we have not met our obligations
when it comes to dispensing the fruits of our research agenda”.
Similarly, Prof. Irache (Spain) and Dr.
Vanbésien (France) consent by remaining skeptical towards to the real
possibility of nano to solve the practical problems of the underdeveloped
countries. Dr. Vanbésien believes that in addition, “…there
are quite some financial interests that pollute the scenario”. The main
problem, states Dr. Altmann (Germany), “…is one of economy,
distribution, etc., so special efforts would be needed.”
What is more, “…there can never be just a
techno solution. Changes in the societal framework are needed for any
technology to be useful”; says Dr. Wolbring (University of Calgary,
Canada). Dr.
Foladori (U of Zacatecas, Mexico) consents. For him,
“…nanotechnology will be of little advancement, unless a
huge change in the socioeconomic structure comes together. Problems of
underdeveloped countries are not of lack of technology but of socio economic
relations. A new technological revolution will not help much, and in some cases
could even worse disparities.”
Dr. Savage (EPA, US) has a similar conception. She
expressed that nanotechnology’s potential to solve the practical problems
of the underdeveloped countries: “…is not that clear-cut. Certainly
nano has a potential for alleviating poverty, increasing potable water
supplies, providing inexpensive energy sources, and increasing available food
supplies. However, it also has a potential to further increase the economic and
technical divide between rich and poor [the so called
‘nano-divide’]; to result in altered soil conditions that may prove
disastrous in particular climates or environments; to increase particulate
matter in ambient and indoor environments; to result in more powerful and
inexpensive destructive weapons; to reduce democracies and increase aristocracies;
to create enhanced human performance/capability for those who can afford it
leaving a portion of the population doomed to servitude; etcetera.”
Correspondingly
Dr. Wetter (ETC Group) stated: “…in a just and judicious context,
yes, nanotech could help solve the ‘practical problems’ of
undeveloped countries. There could also be global environmental benefits from
replacing some conventional materials with new nanomaterials. But in a world
where privatization of science and unprecedented corporate concentration
prevail, the likelihood that nanotechnology will help solve the problems of
poor countries is low. The grab for patents on nano-scale products and
processes could mean monopolies on the basic elements that are the building
blocks of the entire natural world, and will make it more likely that
developing nations will participate in the ‘nanotech revolution’
only via royalty payments. If current trends continue, nano-scale technologies
will contribute to the concentration of economic power in the hands of
multinational corporations instead of solving the problems of poor
countries.”
As with existing
technologies, a key challenge will be
addressing the concerns of intellectual property, according to Boeing
(Germany). And he adds, “…it seems as if the developed countries
are repeating the same strategy as they have done in the past with IT, biotech
and fabrication technology: securing them by IP regimes and thus not giving
underdeveloped countries –which are undercapitalized, too- a chance to
catch up without becoming dependent on tech transfers.”
Dr. López-Quintela (Spain) is quite conclusive
when he asserts that, “…I do not see that nanotechnologies can
solve any problems for the underdeveloped countries. If someone tries to
propagate this idea, either is hypocrisy or nonsense. The solution for
underdeveloped world countries can be found without nanotechnology: It is a
matter of willingness.” Dr. Pérez de Luque of the ‘Alameda
del Obispo’, IFAPA-CICE (Spain) adds: “…I think that the main
practical problems of the underdeveloped countries are not going to be solved
through nanotech. In fact they have not been solved by any technique developed
until now. The main problems of underdeveloped countries are both the well
developed countries and the mega-corporations who exploit their
resources”. Dr. Rodríguez-Cabello (Spain) explains:
“…former experience teaches us that underdeveloped countries always
have difficulties in solving their problems. In general the solutions do not
come exclusively from technological developments. These can be difficult to
incorporate into their social structure. It seems that their problems are of a
more basic nature such as lack of infrastructures and formation of the people.
Only by solving those first, the role played by new technologies could take
part.”
Moreover, Dr. Martins (Brazil) remarks:
“…previous technological waves were presented as the solution for
underdeveloped countries. However these countries still are underdeveloped and,
in some cases, even in worst conditions. Thus, nanotechnology is not a unique
solution for the underdeveloped countries, the solutions –before de
technical ones- are of a political sort…The constraints and possibilities
of a transformation of the current process under which the underdeveloped
countries are subjugated are outlined, in the field of technologies and in the
course of their appropriation. In the case of nanotechnology, as it is a field
that is being appropriated manly by the developed countries and their
multinational corporations, the possibilities of its appropriation by
underdeveloped countries will be extremely reduced.”
In the meantime, Türk (Wuppertal Institute,
Germany) proposes an active promotion of technology transfer and technology
leapfrogging. Similarly, Dr. Welland (University of Cambridge, UK) believes
that what is needed is, “…a sympathetic and partnership based
arrangement and not to force western technology onto under-developed
countries”; while for Dr. Lamba (Tormacom Ltd, Canada), since the problem
lies more on the cost factor it is apparent that “…the undeveloped
countries would need financial assistance for utilizing these processes.”
However, says Dr. Battista Renaldo from the University of Montreal (Canada), in
doing so, “…there is the risk of being perceived paternalistic, if
not imperialistic”.
Communication Proposals
Among Actors and
Communities for Policymaking
Stimulating the Dialogue
“Stakeholders
in nanotechnology are hard to identify if we are not referencing a certain
technology”, points out philosopher Shew. Since the array of technologies
associated with nanotechnology is so vast, she adds, “…different
areas of use need to be evaluated separately. ‘Nanotechnology’ is
an umbrella term and must be understood that way if we hope to avoid
miscommunication.”
In such a
framework, Dr. Savage (EPA, US) assumes that, “…nano’s
impacts, both positive and negative, are best communicated by those engaging in
the research, sponsoring the research, and marketing the products.” And
specifies: “…this has to be a dialogue, however, not merely
communication from one side. The opinion of the general public (in whatever
form that may eventually take – either via media, public-interest groups,
NGO, etc.) should not only be sought but considered and a dialogue initiated
based on expressed responses or concerns. This is not a one-shot deal it most
be a continual, ongoing and evolving conversation in order to produce
meaningful information that society as a whole can then use to go
forward.”
Shew seems to be
in accord, but only as long as the interdisciplinary groups include social
scientists, “…so that the context in which science is taking place
is recognized by the group[s].” It is a condition that Dr. Lin shares as
he realizes that, “…scientists and technologists are generally very
poor in responding to media hype and misinformation.”
Besides, Dr.
Berube believes that ”nano is dominated by hyperbole” and that in
fact, ”…scientists communicate horribly to the public and to policy
makers”. Hence Dr. Berube infers that, ”…the answer is not to
educate the public to speak like scientists (that deficit model has never
worked), the answer is not to bring some folks together to talk about
nanoscience in juries and consensus conferences. The solution rests on solving
the media issue since the media is responsible for amplifying and attenuating
information for the public. If they do their job well (sic), we will discover
the public is well served and can participate as stakeholders.” Hence,
most of the communication difficulties could be worked out, from what can be
derived from the perspective of Dr. Berube, with media training enabled by
‘experts’.
In a similar
direction, Dr. Pérez de Luque (Spain) considers that,
“…independent multidisciplinary committees of experts in nanotech
and nanoscience should be created in order to popularize these fields,
informing about prospects, the benefits and the risks.” Additionally,
Ivcon CEO (Germany), Thomas Ilfrich, proposes that independent projects and
government sponsored projects should be the mechanisms that stimulate dialogue,
however, he critiques the current governmental ‘blindness’ as it
“…does not take independent projects really serious if those are
not part of ‘their’ originally network.”
Differing from an
‘expert’-vision as a unique option, Wetter believes that,
“…any efforts by governments or industry to confine discussions of
nanotech policy to meetings of experts or to focus debate solely on the health
and safety aspects will be a mistake. It is not for scientists to ‘educate’
the public and for industry to smooth public acceptance but for society to
determine the goals and processes for the technologies they finance. At a time
when nano-scale technologies and their convergence are developing faster than
public policies can evolve to address them, it is critical to broaden the
community of participants who play a role in determining how nano-scale
technologies will affect our future. Society must gain a fuller understanding
of the direction and impacts of science and technology innovation in a broader
socio-political context. To keep pace with technological change, society needs
innovative approaches to monitor and assess the introduction of new
technologies.”
On the topic of
what is meant by an ‘expert’, Dr. Wolbring (University of Calgary,
Canada) correctly points out that what we see as an ‘expert’ is a cultural construction with its
accompanying pitfalls. Then it seems obvious to ask questions such as: What are
the characteristics of an expert? How is such expertise measured? Who defines
who is a legitimate ‘expert’ and who is not?
In any case, Dr.
Wolbring suggests that we should be ‘practical’ in the sense that
we need to ”…cut the hype
and lay out all the issues. Work trans-disciplinary and trans-stakeholder
[…and even so] on transtechnology analyses.”
Proposals for Policymaking Advisory
This is a complex problem,
sustains Dr. Lin, because, ”…on the one hand, division of labour
seems to work: let the experts focus on what they do best. So as it applies to
nanotechnology, many scientists and business executives, for example,
don’t seem too interested in the social or ethical questions, which is
fine –that is not their area of expertise. But, still, they play a role
in the larger picture of our future, so an enlightened scientist or business
person (and these do exist) recognizes his or her personal
responsibility.” Furthermore, the problem is so difficult also because
there are a, ”…few people, especially scientists and business
people, [that] do not like being told what to do. And they like even less
policymakers (who may or may not understand nanotechnology well enough in the
first place) who tell them what to do or what their responsibilities are. So it
will take time for attitudes to change and open, productive dialogue to occur
(as with any impassioned issue). One key seems to be the public, since it is
the public who policymakers and businesses ultimately serve. But the
public’s understanding of nanotechnology is low at best. So educating the
everyday person on nanotechnology and nanoethics is important for oversight and
to drive industry responsibility.”
As
follows, for Dr. Vanbésien (France), “…the
interdisciplinarity will be an obligated step towards the coherent development
of nanosciences. The discussion should be at different levels and I expect it
will not be imposed by a too reduced group of experts. In fact, the way in
which these committees of experts are generally nominated forbid the total
objectivity and consequently establishes political pressures of all types…besides
the perennially of a specific group can be problematic. Thus, in order to
seriously monitor the evolution of these technologies we must ensure the
expertise stability so that eventually we could find a modest solution. This
does not mean that we should limit such expertise just to the scientific world,
which is not excluded of diverse pressures. Besides, the solution should not
limit the creativity of researchers. Instead it should ‘control’
the area of applicability of the new nanoobjects. Foresights are difficult and
often the real original solutions sometimes come from where we do not expect
them to.”
The relevance of
such a discussion and dialogue is so important for Treder (CRN, US) that he
warns: “…if politicians, the public, and pundits do not get a grip
on the dangers we are facing, it could be too late to respond effectively and
advert them. On the other hand, if nanotech’s wondrous potential benefits
are not fully appreciated, then irrational fear could delay or prevent them
altogether, denying better health, prosperity, and fuller lives to billions of
peoples.”
Therefore, he
additionally states: “…the challenge of achieving the goals and
managing the risks of nanotechnology requires more than just brilliant
molecular engineering. In addition to scientific and technical ingenuity other
disciplines and talents will be vitally important. No single approach will
solve all problems or address all needs. The only answer is a collective
answer, and that will demand an unprecedented collaboration –a network of
leaders in business, government, academia, and NGOs. It will require
participation from people of many nations, cultures, languages and belief
systems. Never have we faced such a tremendous opportunity before –and
never before have the risks been so great. We must begin building
bridges.”
Those bridges, as conceived
by Dr. Berube, seem to have their foundations in the so-called SEIN groups or
Societal and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology groups; a sub-class of
multidisciplinary groups of “enablers” whose particularities change
depending on how they are visualized by each cluster and/or community. Their
role for policymaking advisory it is being quite extensively accepted although
the particularities, not only of such groups but also of the process of
evaluation and advisory itself, may diverge widely.
Ilfrich for example considers
that interdisciplinary ‘experts’ groups “are absolutely
necessary”. The mix of the findings of such groups with independent
wide-open surveys is a parallel acceptable alternative, however, this is not
true in the case of public consultancy or even in public referendums since, for
Ilfrich, “…those bring only endless/aimless discussions.”
It
is a conception shared by Dr. Vanbésien who believes that
“…a referendum is not an adequate solution. Such a parliamentarian
debate would be sufficiently difficult to carry out in a calm way, and so would
the pedagogic effort of scientists which would be important in order to respond
to alarmist positions of all nature.”
Dr. Lin concurs
with Ilfrich and Vanbésien but alerts that, “…individuals
able to do such multidisciplinary studies are very few in number.” In
addition, even though he sees public surveys as a “good thing”,
nevertheless he suggests being careful since “…a major issue is how
one interprets and acts upon such surveys.”
In contrast, Dr.
Lamba (Tormacon Ltd, UK) is categorical when he states that,
“…there is no need of open surveys. Only the specific focus groups
are required [since] It is a very specific sector, and a highly perceptive
inter-disciplinary group can be quite effective.”
Dr. Pérez
de Luque (Spain) differs completely as he agrees with the viability of the
instruments mentioned before and even with the public referendum mechanisms,
“…but only if the population is really well informed about the
topics.” Following the actions of educating the public, entering in a
discussion and then beginning a dialogue, adds Dr. Savage, “…such a
referendum would provide useful input and result in a well-considered decision,
but not before.” Boeing instead recommends: “…to consider the
implementation of referendum mechanisms once a kind of disruptive
nanotechnology has been demonstrated.” Furthermore, he conveys,
“...the nanotechnology community should make clear where they put
proactive limits into place not waiting for regulation by government bodies. We
definitely need a self-restriction of the nanotechnology community.”
Apparently in
accord with Dr. Altmann’s concern on the veracity that “on policy
advice, there is always the risk of technocratic approaches”, Dr.
Foladori sustains that “…interdisciplinary groups [can] help
scientists to widen their opinion and focus, but hardly helps to adjust
technology policies to the interest of peoples at large.” Then, Dr. Foladori
believes that, “…only organized societal groups have the power to
make their interests become incorporated in public agenda. The following
discussion has to reach trade unions, cooperatives, and people’s mass
organizations that would have not only an opinion and participation
‘light road’, but also the possibility of reacting with social
force.” Dr. Martins (Brazil) agrees by calling to avoid the tendency of
restricting the debate to the ones that “understand the issue” and
instead opening it to the citizens and what he calls the “social
insurance”; meaning citizens as active agents in the process of
decision-taking.
For the moment, Boeing
remarks on the necessity of a classification of nanotechnologies (mentioned
before) as this might be helpful in carrying the dialogue forward.
Resembling the proposal of
Hunt and Ilfrich of an International Nanotechnology Agency, Dr. Wetter offers
the recommendation to, “…create a new United Nations body with the
mandate to track, evaluate and accept or reject new technologies and their
products. To this end, ETC Group has put forward a proposal for an
International Convention on the Evaluation of New Technologies –which
would be an intergovernmental and transparent facility capable of earning the
confidence of governments and society as well as of the scientific
community.”
Towards a Dialogue Methodology for Policy
of
Nanotechnology Implications
Even though there are the sometimes wide-open
divergences, it is obvious that there is a general accord on the necessity of
taking forward the dialogue on nanotechnology aspects and implications.
With that purpose in mind and not with the purpose of
legitimating in advance any
nanotechnology application, it is proposed the following dialogue methodology
for policy.
As it will be seen, it corresponds with several
proposals recommended by the ‘experts’ who participated as part of
the Nano-Conceptions survey.
Following
the proposal of Dr. Strand (November, 2001) on his memo to the COST Nanoscience and Technology Advisory
Group of the European Commission the key aspect of the methodology in
question is the consolidation of a community of “enablers” (here we
are using Dr. Berube’s categorization). Nonetheless, this community, as
proposed here, has quite particular aspects since it does not intent to be under any circumstance, either
functional to established interests or become “…a public relations
division for commercial [or military] nanotechnology”.[24]
First, because of the expressions and words used are
important in an attempt at dialogue in a complex environment of conditions,
such a community has been denominated here as a community of specialists in Environmental, Ethical,
Legal and Social Aspects of nanotechnology, which is integrated by different
clusters and sub-clusters of (E)ELSA groups. Examples are the previously
mentioned SEIN groups, the well-known ELSI groups[25],
the Science, Technology and Society studies, the Real Time Technology
Assessments, or others involved with innovation research, foresight exercises,
risk assessments, etc.
Thus, the (E)ELSA
community[26] is an
umbrella of clusters and sub-clusters of specialists working on the complexity
and uncertainty of science in a broad sense and concerning the practical
problems (on societal, ethical, environmental and legal aspects, among others).
In this sense the (E)ELSA community is just a straightforward way of referring
to such diverse community of specialists as one entity, even though there are
of course major perspective and methodological differences among the concrete
groups and actors.
Nonetheless, even
with the presence of such a diversity of groups, it seems that the
“ideal” ELSA working groups -with such diversity within its own
structure- are yet to be developed since most of the current groups are still
embedded within their own particular vision and are limited to their closest
colleagues.
Dr. Strand has noted that
there are in fact several arguments that might lead us to encourage the demand
of this type of studies of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Accordingly with
Strand, those are:
(i)
The need to understand public perceptions and
attitudes before the launch of new technology,
(ii)
The recent advancements in the academic fields
concerned with such studies,
(iii)
The weak but distinct trend of a growing social and
ethical concern inside the sciences,
(iv)
And above all, the presence of good reasons for being
ambivalent and ethically and socially concerned about new and possibly powerful
sciences and technologies.
Of course, he
adds, “…it remains to specify somewhat more concretely what exact
issues to follow and which methodologies apply. This is in part a matter of the
research process itself and thus it cannot be answered fully yet”.[27]
In the meantime, a general sketch on the mentioned
dialogue methodology and the role of the (E)ELSA community can be worth looking
into in order to take the dialogue and debate forward. Evidently it is a
limited proposal as, for example, it does not necessarily overcome,
paraphrasing Thomas Kuhn[28], the relation of
modern science and technology (e.g. nanoscience and nanotechnology) with
society and the culture in which it is produced (the capitalism production
system).
It is known that there are well-established channels
of communication among some clusters of the diverse communities (natural and
social sciences, government, private sector and society communities) not only
at a level of intra-community but trans-community as well. Nevertheless, there
are also serious communication gaps among other clusters and even entire
‘chunks’ of communities (this includes the case of the (E)ELSA
community as well). In part because of the different language and interests.
These
communication holes cannot be easily filled, as there are several constraint
factors. For example there is an important degree of distrust among actors (as
happened with several replies to the survey participation call).
Besides, several
actors do not have time to express their opinions, an aspect that constantly
obstructs the stream of communication. This is very common among scientists,
and the private sector and government communities. A solution could be explored
based on the principle of ‘social responsibility’. Under that
principle, for example, scientists’ evaluations should include their
activities in communicating and ‘vulgarizing’ their research. One
must realize that as science and technology are achieving levels of increased
complexity and uncertainty, it is no longer valid to blame the ‘lack of
time’ as a factor for a deficient communication.
Of course it is obvious that researchers have to keep
doing what they do best: research. The same is valid for politicians, social
scientists, NGOs, unions, cooperatives, businessmen, and so on. Nevertheless,
it seems to be our social responsibility
to devote our time and willingness. The new generations’ rights might be
at risk.
In this context the role of (E)ELSA specialists
figures as a strategic one not only because of their peculiar multidisciplinary
background but also because they can give a ‘full-time’ effort to
built communications “bridges” among all actors.
However, “ideal” ELSA specialists groups
must fill some general but rigorous characteristics in order to avoid, as much
as possible, any “technocratic” affinity and approaches.
In this sense, an (E)ELSA group must include the same
number of specialists coming from each community. It must incorporate (a)
specialist(s) from each relevant cluster related to the application to discuss.
The designation of ‘relevant’ clusters in any case can exclude the
participation of members of any community as a whole.
The specialists should be publicly approved and
designated by their own cluster and should not work in the same group for more
than one project. New generations of ELSA specialists must have the will to
enrich and expand the ELSA community clusters and restitute the old generations
in a reasonable period of time.
As indicated in Image 2, the group should enable the
communication of all communities and its clusters by dialoguing directly with
them in an open, active and productive dialogue scheme. The involvement of such
communities with the (E)ELSA groups should be enforced in a reasonable way.
The specialists must work together in a
multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary way. This means that a specialist, for
example from the society community, will have to learn to communicate with
colleagues of other clusters and communities not only inside the ELSA working
group but also outside of it.
Because of that, no division of labor is valid inside
the ELSA group in the sense that, for example, a specialist with a background
in social sciences should not assume and carry out
the dialogue process within ‘her/his’ own cluster and community
alone or with colleagues of the same community.
The technological application area to be reviewed
should be the subject of study of more than one (E)ELSA group. A limited number
of (E)ELSA groups with a guaranteed diversity of school of thoughts should
conform the public programs on this kind of evaluations as a conventional way
of operation…at least in strategic scientific and technological fronts.
The funding sources should be public[29]
and must be managed by public universities that would function as operative
head quarters of the different ELSA groups (this last function can be shared
with private universities).
The findings of the evaluations of the diverse
(E)ELSA groups should be published separately and discussed later among
themselves. A final and unique text should be produce by such (E)ELSA groups
for the advisement of policymakers in each country and integrated regions (it
should also be published before any resolution is taken).
The final evaluation should have a bearing on the
process of regulation in the sense that it might impede a regulation that
contradicts the evaluation itself by establishing a moratorium until the issue
is taken either into a new evaluation process or to public
consultancy/referendum.
In the case of international agreements, (E)ELSA
specialists should be included in the negotiation processes as key advisors.
Once the (E)ELSA groups’ evaluation has been done, new groups should be
established for a revision of the process after a defined period of time.
Finally, ELSA groups must have to be subjected of
evaluation by other specialized ELSA groups who monitor and evaluate the work
of the first ones under the same mechanisms explained above.
**This proposal in any case calls for a
delegitimization of the already operative ‘non-ideal’ (E)ELSA
groups or other dialogue mechanisms and debates. It is only suggested as a
parallel mechanism that, because of its characteristics, might take the
dialogue forward while enriching it.**
Preliminary Recommendations:
Governments of the
US, EU and Japan –as the leaders of S&T development- should implement
a pilot project of at least three independent ELSA groups for reviewing, for
example, the case of converging technologies. These must include
‘local’ and foreign ELSA specialists in order to avoid ethnocentric
perspectives. Their results should be published and widely discussed for a
possible broader implementation.
A parallel exercise must be done in the cases
concerning defense, military and security nanotechnologies applications with
the purpose of defining and creating a general international proactive agreement
on regulation/prohibition of such applications in a period no longer than five
years.
Other countries should implement as well this type of
mechanisms, but in relation to their own reality and particularly in the
S&T areas in which there is a higher public concern.
Acknowledgments
I
wish to thank all the people who kindly offered their views for this Report by
participating in the survey: “Nano-Conceptions”, which was carried
out in April 2006.
I
am especially indebted for all the suggestions and encouragement given by Dr.
Roger Strand, director of the Center for the Study of the Sciences and the
Humanities, University of Bergen (Norway). I am also grateful for the laborious
style correction work done by Judith Ann Larsen, also from the Center for the
Study of the Sciences and the Humanities.
Also,
I want to thank colleagues at the Institute of Environmental Science and
Technology (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain) for all their support,
particularly to Dr. Joan Martínez-Alier, sub-director of the Institute.
Last
but not least, it is proper to mention that even though that this Report has
been done under the funding of the Mexican National Council for Science and
Technology through its doctoral scholarship program, as well as with the support
of the Institute of Environmental Science
and Technology (Autonomous University of Barcelona), and the Center for the Study of the Sciences and the
Humanities (University of Bergen); the contents presented here are the sole
responsibility of the author.


[1] This Report has
been published in two formats. The
“HTML” version of the Report has been modified in order to make it
“web-friendly” and consistent with the publication format of the Journal
of Philosophy, Science & Law. Please refer to the “PDF”
version of the Report if the original format is preferred.
[2] This
Report can be quoted freely for the purposes of study or review. Any quotation
must acknowledge the original source. The reproduction of the entire Report is
allowed so long as the author is duly informed. Funded through the Mexican National Council for Science and
Technology’s doctoral scholarship program. This report was also made possible through the assistance of the Instituto
de Ciencia y Tecnología Ambiental Universidad Autónoma de
Barcelona (Spain) and the Senter for Vitskapsteori Universitetet I Bergen
(Norway). © Gian Carlo Delgado-Ramos, 2006.
Questions can be directed to giandelgado@gmail.com.
[3] One of the main references of this debate is one
held between Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley (who passed away at the end of
2005). See: “Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against
‘molecular assemblers’” Chemical
& Engineering News. Vol. 81. No. 48: 37-42. December 1, 2003.
[4] Quotations have been directly taken from written
answers to the survey, except when specified; all contributions are
person-specific and do not necessarily represent the position of centers,
agencies, etc, where the contributors work.
[5] See: Nowonthy, M., et al (1994). The New Production
of Knowledge. Sage Publications. London; and, Funtowicz, S (1990). Uncertainty and Quality in Science for
Policy. Kluwer Academic. London.
[6] Strand, Roger (2001). “ELSA Studies of
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology”, MEMO to the COST Nanoscience and Technology
Advisory Group (NanoSTAG). November 16.
[8] Mehta, Michael (2003). “Nano-hype”, AgBiotech Bulletin, 11(6), 5-6.
[9] Delgado, Gian Carlo quoted in: “Down to the
nearest billionth”, RTD Info
Magazine. European Commission. No. 47. January 2006.
[10] I presented, as a poster, a preliminary proposal of
such a methodology at the Euro Nano Forum
2005 (5th-9th September. Edinburgh, Scotland).
[11] The
author reserves the option to present his well-positioned writings, from a
social community perspective, at a later date and in a different forum.
[12] For an
appreciation on the converging technologies as conceived by the United States
(Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno), see: Roco, Mihail and Bainbridge, William (2002). Converging Technologies for Improving Human
Performance. National Science Foundation. US. For the case of the
Converging Technologies for the European Knowledge Society
(Nano-Bio-Info-Social Sciences): Alfred, Nordmann (Rapporteur) (2004). Converging Technologies – Shaping the
Future of European Societies. European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
[13] “Electro-vision”, New Scientist. 21 January 2006: 33-35.
[14] Baum, R
(1986). “Scanning tunneling microscope achieves atomic resolution”,
Chemical and Engineering News, 64,
22-25. Quoted in Baird, Davis and Shew, Ashley (June 2004).
“Probing the History of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy”. University
of South Carolina. US. Downloadable at:
http://cms.ifs.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/phil/nano/baird-shew.pdf
[15] Ravetz,1971. Op cit: 78, 89.
[16] See: Weiss, Rick (2006). “Nanotech Product
Recalled in Germany”, The
Washington Post. April 6. Also: “Kleinmann pulls nano product”.
Kleinnmann web page:
kleinmann.net/html/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=117 For a
preliminary statement from the industry see: Von Bubnoff, Andreas (undated).
“Study shows no nano in Magic Nano, the German product recalled for
causing breathing problems”, SmallTimes.
US.
[17] 1) Roco, Mihail C., and Bainbridge, William S
(March, 2001). Societal Implications of
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. National Science Foundation. United States.
2) Renzo, Tomellini and Roco, Mihail C (February, 2002). Nanotechnology Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications.
European Commission. Belgium. 3) Environmental Protection Agency (August,
2002). EPA Nanotechnology and the environment:
Applications and Implications. Washington, US. 4) Roco, Mihail. C, and
Bainbridge, William S (December 3-5, 2003). Nanotechnology:
Societal Implications – Maximazing Benefits For Humanity. National
Nanotechnology Initiative. United States. 5) Royal Society (July, 2004). Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies:
Opportunities and Uncertainties. London, UK. 6) Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (2005). Characterizing
the Potential Risks Posed by Engineered Nanoparticles. UK Government. London.
[18] 1) Hett, Ammabelle (2004). Nanotechnology: Small Matter, Many Unknowns. Swiss Reinsurance
Company. Switzerland 2) Lauterwasser, Christoph (June, 2005). Opportunities and
Risks of Nanotechnologies. Allianz AG Center for Technology / OECD. London.
[19] 1) ETC Group (January, 2003). The Big Down: From Genomes to Atoms. Canada; 2) Arnall, Alexander H
(July, 2003). Future Technologies,
Today’s Choices. Greenpeace Environmental Trust. London, UK. 3) Miller, Georgia (May, 2006).
Nanomaterials, Sunscreens And Cosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks.
Friends of the Earth. Australia/US. Etcetera.
[20] Namely the work of Nanologue, an European FP6th
sponsored project (www.nanologue.net); the
research carried out by the International Council on Nanotechnology at Rice
University (http://icon.rice.edu/index.cfm); the evaluations of the
International Risk Governance Council
(www.irgc.org/irgc/projects/nanotechnology/); the publications of the Center
for Responsible Nanotechnology (www.crnano.org/); the work of the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars through its project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies (www.nanotechproject.org); the work done by the NanoEthics
Group (www.nanoethics.org);or the quite numerous publications and institutional
projects of the International Nanotechnology and Society Network
(www.nanoandsociety.com/), among others.
[21] See, for example: a) Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas
(1971). The entropy law and the economic
process. Harvard University Press. Cambridge; b) Martínez-Alier,
Joan (1987), Ecological Economics,
Energy, Environment and Society. Basil Blackwell. Oxford; c) Eurostat
(March 6, 2001). Economy-wide material
flow accounts and derived indicators. Statistical Office of the European
Communities. Brussels; d) Adriaanse et al
(1997) Resource flows. World Resource
Institute. Washington, US; or e) Ayres, Robert U., y Simonis, Udo E (1994). Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for
Sustainable Development. The United Nations University. Tokyo/New York.
[22] These aspects are also recognized in:
Roco/Bainbridge, 2001: 13-16; Altmann, Jürgen (2006). Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications And Preventive Arms
Control. Routledge: section 1.4; and, Anton et al
(2001). The Global Technology
Revolution:Bio/Nano/Materials Trends and their Synergies with Information
Technology by 2015. RAND: Santa Monica, CA.
[23] Exemplifying: the US has not ratified the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It has been accused of some how violating the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by celebrating a civil nuclear agreement with
India. It has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, neither the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
[24] Berube, 2005. Op cit: 313. Berube refers to such
functionality as a “masking function of SEIN research” (Ibid: 312)
[25] Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications (ELSI)
groups were quite common for evaluating the ethical implications of
biotechnology or bioethics. Some sounded cases are the studies concerning the
Human Genome Project.
[26] (E)ELSA community must not be confused with the
Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects groups or ELSA groups which with particular
methodological differences, are quite similar to ELSI groups.
[27] Strand, November 2001. Op cit.
[28] Kuhn, Thomas S (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago
Press. US.
[29] Private sources can be funneled through tax
imposition mechanisms.
Return to Home Page