Nanotechnologies : vers une répétition du fiasco des OGM ? [en]
Le processus de prise de décision en matière de nanotechnologie doit devenir plus démocratique, ou l’Europe risque de répéter les erreurs commises dans la gestion de l’alimentation génétiquement modifiée, selon un nouveau rapport sur la politique scientifique.
Background
Nanomaterials are now used in a wide range of products, including cosmetics, medical devices and textiles.
However, a gulf is opening between the promise that innovations in nanotechnology can help address a broad range of problems while generating new industries, and growing consumer concerns over the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials.
In March, the European Parliament voted to back tougher rules on the use of nanotechnology in cosmetics (EurActiv 28/04/09). The European Commission's health directorate held a public hearing earlier this month as part of its efforts to engage stakeholders and address concerns.
Experts warn that current methods of involving the public are "marked by mixed motives and confused practices," and call for a radical shake-up of how Europe engages the public.
Scientists and politicians often cite the public debate on genetically-modified foods as a case study of how communication failures can hold up technological progress. Many of the interest groups with concerns about GM foods remain deeply sceptical of nanotechnology.
The 'Deepen' report, which brings together findings from a three-year European research project involving ethicists, philosophers and the social and political sciences, says regulators and industry need to be more open with the public when crafting governance plans for new technologies.
Codes of conduct on nanotechnology are also important, according to the report, although the public is consistently wary of self-regulation by industry.
Research has found that, just as with genetically-modified foods, most non-scientists accept that a degree of risk is inevitable when introducing new technologies.
However, it warns the public is "concerned about the motivations driving technology," and are suspicious that the risks will be spread across society while the benefits will not be distributed equally.
Phil Macnaghten of Durham University in the UK said the public raises genuine concerns which must be addressed.
"Technologies are being driven forward with insufficient reflection on why they are being developed and on what this is likely to mean for future society," he said.
Involving public in policymaking
He said the public is keen to be involved in deliberating on the far-reaching questions science is addressing and that policymakers must find new ways to ensure public views are used to inform science policy.
The European Commission held a public hearing earlier this month and received dozens of position papers from organised stakeholders such as industry lobbies and environmental NGOs.
However, Macnaghten said the aim of engaging the public in shaping science policy is not simply about getting society to accept new technologies. He expressed scepticism about stakeholder dialogue exercises, which he warned often lead to a "cosy consensus".
He said NGOs tend to work within existing frameworks, focusing on risks and benefits, but it is important to involve citizens who are not organised into lobby groups.
The report, launched in Brussels yesterday (29 September) urges policymakers "to develop a healthy scepticism about the rhetoric of the win-win situation characteristic of much discourse on nanotechnology".
Thinking of technology solely as a source of progress without negative consequences will hinder the responsible development of nanotech, it concludes.
Positions
João Nunes of Coimbra University, Portugal, conducted focus groups with non-scientists and found "tension between hope and concerns arising from uncertainty". He said public engagement on science is not simply conversing about a new technology, it should lead to public input into decision-making.
Arie Rip of Twente University, Holland, proposed "slow innovation" as a more sustainable approach to developing new technologies in a socially acceptable way. He said society has to learn about new science slowly rather than being confronted with new revolutionary innovations.
Rip also warned of the growing trend of industry "hiding" nanotechnology for fear of upsetting wary consumers (EurActiv 18/06/09). "This is a defensive strategy. Companies deliberately playing down their nanotech R&D – or describing it merely as ‘chemistry research’ lack civil courage," he said.
Alfred Nordmann of Darmstadt University criticised the German approach to handling public concerns on nanotechnology. He said the nanotech sector is treated with kid gloves to ensure it develops into a strong new industry.
Next Steps
- Dec. 2009: Publication of FramingNano report on nanotechnology governance.
Sponsors
