Worries in the science community about a public backlash against nanotechnology have been growing in recent months. Currently, public fears range from the reasonable, such as the unknown effects of nanoparticles on health and the environment, to what scientists consider to be the ridiculous - a world overrun by plagues of self-replicating nanorobots. This is the "grey goo" scenario that looms large in Prey, the recent novel by Michael Crichton that seems to have kick-started this current bout of nano-angst. The nightmare scenario for scientists is that the public - egged on by various pressure groups - will reject nanotechnology in the same way that the UK and other countries have rejected genetically modified (GM) food.
Of course, researchers could just return to their laboratories and hope that the public starts to worry about something else. But that would be misguided. The closure of the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) at Brookhaven in the US in 1997 on grounds that most scientists consider to the completely without foundation illustrates the dangers of the blinkered approach. The tritium leak at Brookhaven did not constitute a health risk, but it did frighten some of the lab’s high-profile neighbours and the HFBR is now history (Physics World May p19). The management of Gran Sasso in Italy – from which 50 kg of hazardous solvent recently leaked into a local river – must make sure that history does not repeat itself.
So what can the nanotechnology community do to reassure the public? First, it must confront the problem and resist the temptation to make glib statements like “Nano-sized self-replicating objects already exist – they’re called bacteria and viruses!” Second, it must not expect the public to distinguish between different types of nanotechnology, even if they are as different as chalk and cheese. This might seem unfair on, say, physicists working in nanoelectronics, but scientists of all sorts have been happy to stick the “nanotech” label on their grant proposals when they wanted to benefit from government enthusiasm for all things nano.
And third, researchers must embrace and support efforts to understand the public’s reaction to nanotechnology, such as the investigation into “the potential benefits and possible problems associated with nanotechnology and nanoscience” being carried out for the UK government by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. In addition to summarizing the current state of nanoscience and the likely future applications of nanotechnology, this working group intends to attempt three other tasks: to assess the potential health, safety and environmental applications of nanotechnology; to consider ethical and social issues related to nanotechnology; and to identify areas where additional regulation needs to be considered.
So what is the working group likely to recommend when it completes its report by next spring? More research on the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology for one thing, if the results of similar exercises in the US are any guide. Most witnesses at a recent congressional hearing on the “societal implications of nanotechnology” cited the example of the Human Genome Project, which allocated 5% of its budget to ethical, legal and other societal implications of the project. Despite headlines about human cloning and designer babies, the generally positive reaction to the project is in marked contrast to the near outright rejection of GM foods in many parts of the world.
US programmes looking at the ethical implications of nanotechnology have not been overwhelmed by applications. However, it is important to get the relevant experts to look into these issues – if only to show that the questions raised by nanotechnology are the same as those that accompany any other new technology. And if it can also be demonstrated to the public that nanotechnology presents no dangers to our health or the environment, any nascent opposition should start to fade.
