Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:51:38.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The National Nanotechnology Initiative and the Social Good

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Ronald Sandler  and
W. D. Kay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States federal government anticipates that nanotechnology will be the platform for the next technological and industrial revolution. The vision of its ongoing National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is “a future in which the ability to understand and control matter on the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry.” The idea that nanotechnology is revolutionary has reached the public. In one public survey, over three-quarters of respondents answered correctly that “experts consider nanotechnology to be the next industrial revolution of the U.S. Economy.”

Labeling nanotechnology as “revolutionary” promotes a general attitude towards nanotechnology by trading on a common line of reasoning: technological revolutions are constituted by significant technological progress; technological progress enables comfort, ease, health, longevity, security and wealth; therefore, technological revolutions are social goods. Thus, to claim that nanotechnology is revolutionary invites a positive socio-ethical evaluation of it, not just a positive scientific or technological one.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , Winter 2006 , pp. 675 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan (December, 2004): at 1. The National Nanotechnology Initiative was introduced by the Clinton Administration to Congress in a February 2000 report entitled National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution, which was prepared by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology. The report supplemented the administration's request to double nanoscience and nanotechnology research and development funding for FY 2001. The Bush Administration has continued to promote nanotechnology as the basis for the next industrial revolution. The supplemental document to its FY 2006 Budget Request, submitted to congress in March 2005 by the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology, is entitled The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry.Google Scholar
Scheufele, D. A. and Lewenstein, B., “The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7, no. 6 (2005): 659–667.Google Scholar
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Public Law 108–153 (108th Congress, 2003).Google Scholar
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act § 2(b)(10)(D) (2003).Google Scholar
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan (July 2000) and Strategic Plan (December, 2004).Google Scholar
Uldrich, J. and Newberry, D., The Next Big Thing Is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business (New York: Crown Publishing, 2003): at 17.Google Scholar
See, for example, the testimony of Colvin, V. L., Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, hearings before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 1st session (2003); and Service, R. F., “Nanotech Forum Aims to Head Off Replay of Past Blunders,” Science 306 (2004): 955.Google Scholar
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (May 2005).Google Scholar
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution (February 2000): at 68.Google Scholar
These and other differences between GMOs and nanotechnology are discussed in Sandler, R. and Kay, W. D., “The GMO-Nanotech (Dis)Analogy?” Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society 26, no. 1 (2006): 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For further information on these objections see Ruse, M. and Castle, D., eds., Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology (Prometheus Books, 2002); or Bailey, B. and Lappe, M., eds., Engineering the Farm: Ethical and Social Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology (Island Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J., “Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6, no. 4 (2004): 395–405; and Scheufele and Lewenstein (2005), supra note 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, E. M. calls this role “expert as facilitator” in “The Expert's Role in Nanoscience and Technology,” in Baird, D. Nordmann, A., and Schummer, J., eds., Discovering the Nanoscale (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004): 257–66.Google Scholar
Concerns are sometimes expressed about the usefulness of including the public in decision-making of this sort given that most of the general public, including many of those who would participate, have only a superficial understanding of the science and technology at issue. However, one need not be an expert in nanoscience or nanotechnology to make informed judgments about the values or goods at stake with nanotechnology. The public might set certain goals or constraints, even while it is left to the experts in science and industry to achieve those goals (given those constraints) in a technologically feasible and economically viable way.Google Scholar
“We believe that there is a danger of derailing NT if serious study of NT's ethical, environmental, economic, legal, and social implications…does not reach the speed of progress in the sciences…The only way to avoid such a moratorium [on nanotechnology] is to immediately close the gap between the science and ethics of NT. The lessons of genomics and biotechnology make this feasible. Either the ethics of NT will catch up, or the science will slow down.” From Mnyusiwalla, A. Daar, A. S., and Singer, P. A., “‘Mind the Gap’: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology,” Nanotechnology 14 (2003): R9–R13, at R9, R12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
These are from the Strategic Plan, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Toumey, C., “History and Ethos of the South Carolina Citizens School of Nanotechnology,” at <http://nsts.nano.sc.edu/SCCSNhistory&ethos.pdf> (last visited August 8, 2006).+(last+visited+August+8,+2006).>Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency website, “Nanoscale Materials; Notice of Public Meeting,” at <http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2005/May/Day-10/t9324.htm> (last visited August 4, 2006).+(last+visited+August+4,+2006).>Google Scholar
The purpose defined for these centers is to “formulate a long-term vision for addressing societal, ethical, environmental, and education concerns; involve partners or affiliates to collaborate on topics related to responsible development of nanotechnology; include plans to involve a wide range of stakeholders; and develop a clearinghouse for information on communicating about nanoscience and nanotechnology and engaging the public in meaningful dialogue,” Strategic Plan, supra note 1, at 13.Google Scholar
Center for Nanotechnology and Society, Arizona State University website, Project Archives, at <http://www.cspo.org/projects/nanotechnology/> (last visited August 4, 2006).+(last+visited+August+4,+2006).>Google Scholar
National Science Foundation website, “New Grants Are Awarded to Inform the Public and Explore the Implications of Nanotechnology,” at <http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104505&org=olpa&from=news> (last visited August 4, 2006).+(last+visited+August+4,+2006).>Google Scholar
An ambitious effort recently initiated to expand public awareness, understanding, and dialogue regarding nanotechnology is the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) Network. The NISE Network is a nationwide partnership of science museums led by the Museum of Science, Boston, the Science Museum of Minnesota, and the Exploratorium in San Francisco. It is supported by a five-year twenty million dollar award from the National Science Foundation as part of the NNI.Google Scholar
Among federal agencies, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has been perhaps the most proactive in this respect. Information on the agency's efforts can be found at NIOSH, “Safety and Health Topic: Nanotech,” at <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/> (last visited August 7, 2006). (last visited August 7, 2006).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Among+federal+agencies,+the+National+Institute+for+Occupational+Safety+and+Health+has+been+perhaps+the+most+proactive+in+this+respect.+Information+on+the+agency's+efforts+can+be+found+at+NIOSH,+“Safety+and+Health+Topic:+Nanotech,”+at++(last+visited+August+7,+2006).>Google Scholar