UK and US attitudes to nanotechnology

Here is a new study that shows "People In The U.S. And The U.K. Show Strong Similarities In Their Attitudes Toward Nanotechnologies". Interesting that people focus more on the benefits of nanotechnology than the risks. I would have thought that people living in the UK might be more aware of the risks of nanotechnology than people living in the US, because I was living in the UK during BSE and Foot and Mouth disease outbreaks and believe me, the media and the opposition party ensured that the public were well aware of the failings of government to regulate effectively to ensure food was indeed 'safe'. I also noticed that there was also a lot of public debate going on at the time about the safety of GM foods (both in the UK and Europe). Although I am not sure about the levels of debate on the GM food issue in the US.

.

Anyway, here is a link to the full news article called "People In The U.S. And The U.K. Show Strong Similarities In Their Attitudes Toward Nanotechnologies" from Science Daily. The abstract is here on Nature Nanotechnology (advanced online edition) - although I will have to wait for the normal on-line edition to read the full thing (maybe a week).

.

The results include the following key findings:

• Overall participants in both countries focused on the benefits rather than the risks of nanotechnologies, and also exhibited a high degree of optimism regarding the future contribution of new technologies to society. This pattern was very similar in the workshops in both the United States and Britain.

• Some small cross-country differences were present. U.K. participants were generally more aware of recent technological controversies and risk governance failures (examples include genetically modified organisms, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and foot and mouth disease), leading some to voice specific concerns about future nanotechnology risks.

The study also found that people were more likely to be positive about nanotechnology used for energy projects, than when it is used for medical purposes. This makes sense to me, because people will tend to be more concerned with risks that seem to relate more directly to themselves and their family and friends - like health concerns - rather than worry about more psychologically distant things like the risks of energy nanotechnology.

**If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

What is nanotechnology?
.
History of Nanotechnology
.
Nanotechnology - risks and benefits

Nanotechnology and Climate Change

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Nanotechnology - risks and benefits

Some of my thoughts on nanotechnology:
.
When it comes to nanotechnolgy, there are both possible benefits and risks involved. Those that are pro-science tend to push the benefits and those that are against science tend to push the risks of nanotechnology and nanoproducts.

Benefits: the amazing possibilities of nanotechnology are almost endless (and are already being used in medicine today, for example, fluorescent biological labels, drug and gene delivery, tissue engineering and MRI contrast enhancement) and the hype and marketing surrounding nanotechnology makes it difficult to separate what is technically possible and what may one day be available. There are also many possible environmental beneficial effects.
.
Risks: consider the case of the nanosock which has nanosilver particles in them to prevent bacteria and foot odor. Preliminary results from research being conducted by Troy Benn (an Arizona State University doctoral student) were presented at the American Chemical Societies 2008 conference. The research found that nanosilver particles would come out of the sock in the wash and therefore be released into the environment. This raises serious issues, such as what happens when bacteria killing particles are released into the environment? Science cannot yet answer that question adequately so we should remember the precautionary principle and be very careful until we can.
.
New nanoproducts should be tested for safety before going onto the market, but currently the risk research lags behind the new products (as we are only beginning to see some of the risks of nanotechnology).
.
Molecular nanotechnology may allow the creation of self-replicating machines and the problem of ‘grey goo’.
.
Nanoweapons could be created, given almost half of all scientific research is for military purposes, there is a good chance that researchers will look towards nanoweapons that could deliver bioweapons – like a nanobot mosquito with a nasty toxin such as botulism). The development of nanoweapons could lead to a nanotechnology arms race, between nanotechnology superpowers or even smaller rogue states or terrorist group. There could be a large number of states with nanoweapons and because of there size they would be difficult to find and easy to smuggle which means they could be easily transported. There is also the possibility that a black-market for banned nanomachines could occur and because of the size of future nanomachines, it would be difficult to find them.
.
Microscopic surveillance devices raise serious privacy concerns because individuals, governments or businesses could misuse them and it would be very difficult to deal with negative antisocial uses of the technology e.g. hidden cameras in private places such as bathrooms; used for industrial or government espionage.
.
Nanotechnology could have unintended consequences that could cause serious harm to society or the environment. Technocratic science has ‘blind-spots’ that result from its disciplinary and reductionist nature. These blind-spots could include unanticipated new illnesses, unintended negative environmental effects or major negative social change. These unintended consequences could also cause the public to lose of confidence in nanotechnology and this could effect funding.
.
A lack of effective regulations to deal with the unintended consequences of nanotechnology could allow dangerous risks to be placed upon society. I believe a precautionary approach is therefore needed.
.
Having said all this - scientists actually working in fields of nanotechnology and nanoscience are increasingly aware of both the possible benefits and the possible problems. The example of genetically modified food has demonstrated to many scientists, some of the possible battles ahead. Good policy needs to stear through the minefield of the different assumptions and views on 'science' itself.
.
Will the public trust nanoscience if it is found being used for weapons or polluting the environment? What if it is providing much joy and saving many lives?Many governments (including the US Government, the European Union and the Australian Government) have began to investigate the question of what should society do with nanotechnology.
.
Conclusion:
.
I believe that there are many different values and worldviews in our society e.g. anthropocentric, ecocentric and ecofeminism. These values and worldviews are often conflicting and there is no one correct way of answering all the difficult ethical and environmental questions raised by rapidly progressing nanotechnology.
.
Therefore, there needs to be a dialogue between all the key stakeholders, rather than a narrow group of experts. In order for the public to gain some control over the technology (Habermas question), they need to be involved in the problem definition, problem framing, discussing of options, etc. It must be a bottom-up rather than the typical top-down decision (leave it to the 'experts' i.e. scientists and economists).
.
This could be achieved using a citizen’s jury (as they did with the UK nanojury). This is needed because nanotech has the potential to affect almost all aspects of modern society, so all people have a stake in their future and help decide what risks they are prepared to take rather than having them thrust upon them without been consulted.
.

by Random Man (2008)

.
Comments most welcome, what do you all think about nanotechnology??
.
For more see: History of Nanotechnology and What is nanotechnology?

.

.