Armin Grunwald
Social perception of Nanotechnology - are we running into a situation of public resistance?
Vortrag bei der Europäischen Leitveranstaltung für das Nano Business "Nano Solutions":
Sustainability in Nanotechnology, Köln, 29.11.2006
Abstract
Since some years nano-scientists, policymakers, and funding agencies are
concerned about the public perception of nanotechnology. While nanotechnology had
been perceived exclusively positive in the first years, there are fears of severe risk
since the Bill Joy-debate and recent development in the field of nano-particles and
their possibly harmful health or environmental effects. Even the diagnosis that
nanotechnology might run - after nuclear power energy and genetics - into the next
communication disaster at the interface between technology and society has become
popular. Postulates of a moratorium concerning the use and release of nanoparticles,
brought up by NGOs, strengthened expectations and fears in this direction
considerably. The initial question whether there might be a problem of public
perception of nanotechnology, turned into a more or less strong and unquestioned
conviction of the existence of this problem. Newspaper articles on risks of
nanotechnologies and some actions of NGOs have been taken as indicators in
favour of this conviction.
However, the diagnosis of a severe problem of public perception of nanotechnology
is, due to my conviction, inadequate in the current situation. Though I concede
failures of public communication of nanotechnology, especially in using far-ranging
visions, I do not see a severe crisis of the public perception of nanotechnology. A
severe problem would be at place if, for example, fundamentalism in diverging
positions would occur, if the population would separate into groups of "pros" and
"cons" regarding nanotechnology, or if over-simplifications and the unwillingness to
listen to the arguments of the respective other side would become dominant. As I can
see, we do not have a situation showing these attributes today in the field of public
perception of nanotechnology.
Asking for possible risks, for side-effects and for the limits and uncertainties of
knowledge as weil as the postulate of adequately dealing with them is, in my perception not a sign of crisis but expresses the quite normal behaviour of an
emancipated public regarding scientific and technological advance. The occurrence
of a risk debate on nanotechnology does not show the inevitability of a perception
disaster concerning nanotechnology but seems, instead, to be an indicator that
society has reached a more mature way of dealing with new and promising
technologies.
In order to support this diagnosis I would like to put forward the following arguments:
-
In the well-known cases of communication disasters and severe problems
of public perception at the interface of technology and society, like in the
fields of nuclear power and gene technology, there has always been a
singular, simply understandable, and, seen from the eyes of "normal"
people, plausible counterargument concerning the technologies under
consideration at the core of resistance and rejection. In case of nuclear
power this has been the fear of an accident with catastrophic
consequences. Plausible is this fear in the eyes of many people because
we are all familiar with non-functioning technology, with dysfunctions, and
with accidents. Why should nuclear power be the great exception? Or take
the field of genetic manipulation of organisms. Wouldn't it be like playing
God, an expression of human hubris with unimaginable consequences if
we would manipulate the "source code" of life? Or look at the field of stem
cell research. As soon as the moral status of a human person is attributed
to embryos, following particular religious ideas, there are immediate
consequences for the permission or a ban on stem cell research, or on the
conditions of permission.
In the field of nanotechnology, however, such a very simple and - for many
people - plausible counterargument against nanotechnology as such is not
available yet, and it is hard to imagine that a counterargument of this kind
could be brought up. The diversity of nanotechnologies is, in a certain
sense, a barrier against the possibility of identifying a very simple and
specific counterargument against nanotechnology as such. If there is
something common to all nanotechnologies at all, it might be the idea of
"shaping the world atom by atom". This ingenious slogan however does not
provide any potential of a counter-argument against nanotechnology.
Atoms and moleeules, for example, do not have a moral status (other than
the embryo). Moral problems therefore could be related with applieations of
nanoteehnology but not with the teehnology as such.
Surely it might be the case that very specific and simple counterarguments
could influence some application areas of nanotechnology. For example,
there might be a movement against human enhancement by NBIC
technologies, based on some cultural, religious or anthropological
assumptions shared by many people. Or it might be the case that the
possibility to create artificial life based on cells designed by the means of
nanobiotechnology could cause resistance similar to the resistance against
genetic manipulation of organisms. These types of rejection, however,
would hit only specific application fields but not nanotechnology per se.
-
Consider the "Magic Nano" product which recently had to be withdrawn
from the German market because of health adverse effects. It is not the
only case where the prefix "nano" has been used to create a positive aura.
If there would be a serious problem of publie perception of nanotechnology
no company would voluntarily apply the prefix "nano" to its products - a
fortiori not in cases where nanotechnology isn't included at all. Obviously,
no company would, at least in Germany and some other European
countries, use the prefix "atom" or "nuclear" for advertisement purposes.
As long as companies use the prefix "nano" for advertisement and PR
purposes this is a strong indieation that they do not see any severe
problem of publie perception but expect a positive appreciation by
customers.
-
Consider the "Magic Nano" case again but from a different perspective. In
spite of the fact that German newspapers like talking about risks in an
"alarmistie way", especially concerning human health, they did not
construct a medial event around the "Magic Nano" case. Most of them
ignored it, others informed only briefly. If there would be a severe problem
of public perception of nanotechnology there for sure would have been a
strong wave of involvement of the media, independent from the fact that no
nano-particles had been part of the respective product Take the field of
nuclear power for comparison. Eaeh event outside of normal processes in
nuclear power plants is taken up by the media with emphasis, and is put in
the context of the risk debate. In the case of "Magic Nano" this has not
been the case - an observation which supports the diagnosis that currently
there is no serious problem.
-
A more speculative argument. We witnessed in the eighties and nineties a
public debate on the scientific and technological advance which could be
characterized as driven by the postulate of "zero-risk" technologies. In the
meantime, however, public attitudes have changed, up to my observation.
The term "zero-risk" disappeared in newspaper articles and in speeches of
politicians. Instead, living with risk and uncertainty has become a
continuous topic in debates at the interface between technology and
society. Seemingly, it is currently widely accepted (1) that "zero risk" is an
inadequate postulate and (2) that technological advance certainly is related
with risk and uncertainty. The attention moved from postulating "zero-risk"
technologies to focussing on the ways of dealing with risk - which is a
much more constructive and deliberative approach. Consequently, society
has not been surprised or shocked to learn about possible risks of
nanotechnology.
At the other part of the game, at the side of science and policy-making,
also learning effects did take place. Scientists themselves talked about
risks and postulated adequate measures for dealing with them. In the field
of nanotechnology, there are, in the meantime, a lot of activities which
make clear that dealing responsibly with risk is been seen as part of the
scientific advance and its political shaping, funding, and regulating. Risk is
not ignored or denied but is actively dealt with. Also the uncertainties
involved are communicated. Of course there are always desires that
science could be faster and deeper interested in reflecting on possible
side-effects etc; the classical confrontation between science (focussing on
benefits) and the public and the media (focussing on risk) does not apply to
the field of nanotechnology.
Consequently, if there is no diametral confrontation but a more reflexive approach on
both sides there is a lesser risk of running into a communication and perception
disaster.
This diagnosis, however, does not allow to lean back and to be satisfied. Ongoing
effort is necessary to maintain and to stabilize this "constructive" communication and
perception situation. Such situations always are highly fragile, in the same sense as
trust can easily be destroyed but is hard to be rebuilt. Research on possible sideeffects
of nano-particles, effort on answering ethical questions, precautious dealing
with nano-particles in production and in products, pro-active deliberation on
regulation issues, open public dialogues, and further activities of informing the public
remain highly necessary. There is actually no threat of an emerging perception
disaster concerning nanotechnology per se - but incautious behaviour could change
the situation quickly.
Erstellt am: 08.11.2006 -
Kommentare an:
webmaster