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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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