Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From “Safe by Design” to Scientific Changes: Unforeseen Effects of Controversy Surrounding Nanotechnology in France

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on fieldwork, this article highlights the unexpected effects of controversies about nanotechnology in France. These controversies stem in particular from a strong challenge to the field by civil society protests and criticism concerning environmental and health risks. One reason for this challenge is the specific difficulties in assessing the toxicity and ecotoxicity of nanomaterials. Civil society organizations have pushed for strictly controlling or stopping academic, industrial, or even basic research. They were not successful in this regard but their activities prompted researchers to think about “safe by design” solutions and this led to new interdisciplinary cooperation. Furthermore, the uncertainty about the risks assessment resulted in a reconfiguration of the relationship between academic research and industrial companies. Researchers have become essential to the shaping of safe products. The risks of nanomaterials have thus been a driving force for new research and innovation practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For instance: “…moratoire sur la recherche appliquée et la commercialisation des nanoproduits” (moratorium on applied research and marketing of nanoproducts) Sciences Citoyennes, November 2009, https://sciencescitoyennes.org/mettons-vraiment-les-nanos-en-question/

  2. Notably: Un moratoire prolongé sur toute recherche en nanosciences et nanoingéniérie, y compris militaire (An extended moratorium on all research in nanosciences and nano-engineering, including military research, Friends of the Earth/France, https://www.amisdelaterre.org/Position-sur-les-nanotechnologies.html). These demands became obvious during a public dialogue organized by the CNDP (Commission Nationale du Débat Public) on nanotechnology (http://cpdp.debatpublic.fr/cpdp-nano/debat/cndp.html).

  3. www.uic.fr/content/download/12120/149644/file/GuideNANOS_UIC_200903.pdf

  4. Report to the President and Congress on the fifth assessment of the NNI, 2014. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf

  5. Avis et rapports du Conseil économique et social: les nanotechnologies, 2008, www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/084000408.pdf

  6. Report of the National Committee of the CNRS, 2004 http://www.cnrs.fr/comitenational/doc/rapport/2004/lesateliers/023-046-Chap2-Nanosciences.pdf

  7. A trend represented by a very militant group: “Pièces et Main-d’Oeuvre” (PMO), which goes under the banner of “Site de bricolage pour la construction d’un esprit critique grenoblois” (approximately: DIY site for the building of a critical mind in Grenoble).

  8. Some of the most active or media-savvy civil society organizations include Greenpeace, Avicenn, Vivagora, Sciences et Démocratie, Sciences Citoyennes, Pièces et Main-d’Oeuvre, Les Amis de la Terre (Friends of the Earth France), and France Nature Environnement.

  9. Such as Cientifica and Lux Research

  10. A study led by the French Ministry of Finance [15] significantly tempers the euphoric figures provided by private studies.

  11. Interdepartmental statement of October 27, 2011, “Engagements du Gouvernement sur les suites à apporter au débat public relatif au développement et à la régulation des nanotechnologies” (Government commitments on follow-up to the public debate on the development and steering of nanotechnology) https://www.debatpublic.fr/file/1105/download?token=5y2xpcWD

  12. Decree no. 2012-232, February 17, 2012, on the annual declaration of substances in the nanoparticulate state pursuant to Article L. 523-4 of the Environmental Code, JORF no. 0043, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT00000025377246&categoryLink=id

  13. Review of the public debate on the development and regulation of nanotechnology, 2012 (http://cpdp.debatpublic.fr/cpdp-nano/_script/ntsp-document-file_download7d8e.pdf?document_id=503&document_file_id=761)

  14. Interviews with several researchers in France (in about 10 laboratories)

  15. Interview with a chemist

  16. https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm?pg=nano

  17. https://businessdocbox.com/Biotech_and_Biomedical/68076671-Overview-of-the-ec-ehs-research-plans-and-perspective-fp7-and-future-research-needs-most-recent-calls-for-proposals-and-those-anticipated.html

  18. Several researchers insisted on this point: a non-effect result will not favor publishing.

  19. Interview with a physicist

  20. Interview with a toxicologist

  21. All the interviewed researchers agreed on this point.

  22. Interview with a physicist

  23. Interview with a chemist

  24. Nano, Bio, Info, Cogno

  25. In January 2018 for instance, widely publicized campaigns by French civil society organizations focused on nanoTiO2 in food through an additive: E171.

  26. Metrology is usually defined as the set of techniques able to perform measurements, interpret them, and ensure their accuracy.

  27. “Arrêté du 5 mai 2017 fixant les conditions d’étiquetage des nanomatériaux manufacturés dans les denrées alimentaires.” It should be said that this ministry regularly has, since 2007, the second or third rank in the protocol (importance) order of ministries, the prime minister having the first one.

  28. In France, it is forbidden to call for a boycott of products. Nevertheless, public critical assessment of goods by consumer organizations could be named as an implicit boycott because it has almost the same effect.

  29. Interview with a physicochemist

  30. Interview with a chemist and an ecotoxicologist

  31. Interview with a chemist

References

  1. Kelty C (2009) Beyond implications and applications: the story of ‘safety by design’. NanoEthics 3(2):79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Johansson M, Boholm Å (2017) Scientists’ understandings of risk of nanomaterials: disciplinary culture through the ethnographic lens. Nanoethics 11(3):229–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0297-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwarz-Plaschg C, Kallhoff A, Eisenberger I (2017) Making nanomaterials safer by design? NanoEthics 11(3):277–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0307-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang X (2015) Revisiting upstream public engagement: from a Habermasian perspective. NanoEthics 10(1):63–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Suraud MG, Barrey S, Chaskiel P, Crivellari P, Debailly R, Morena E, Pucheu E (2011) Les nanoactivités à l’épreuve de leur légitimation. Research report, Programme REPERE, Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement Durable, des transports et du logement and ANR Nano-Innov

  6. ANSES (2014) Évaluation des risques liés aux nanomatériaux. Enjeux et mise à jour des connaissances. Rapport d’expertise collective, https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/AP2012sa0273Ra.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2019

  7. Van de Poel I, Robaey Z (2017) Safe-by-design: from safety to responsibility. Nanoethics 11(3):297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0301-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. National Science Foundation, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vinck D, Hubert M (2017) Nanotechnologies, l’invisible révolution - Au-delà des idées reçues, 2nd edn. Le Cavalier Bleu, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  10. Laurent B (2013) Les espaces politiques des substances chimiques. Définir des nanomatériaux internationaux, européens et français. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 7(19):195–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chateauraynaud F (2005) Nanosciences et technoprophéties. Le nanomonde dans la matrice des futurs. 30 avril, http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/11/19/98/PDF/nanotechnos_FC.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2019

  12. Chateauraynaud F, Doury M, Trabal P (2012) Chimères, promesses et prophéties dans les controverses autour des nanosciences et des nanotechnologies. Journées nationales nanosciences et nanotechnologies, 7–9 Novembre, Bordeaux

  13. Suraud MG (2014) L’espace public des risques; Concertation et communication. Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication 4/2014. URL: http://rfsic.revues.org/883. Accessed 13 July 2019

  14. Chaskiel P (2013) Syndicalisme et nanotechnologies. De l’espace des relations professionnelles à l’espace public des risques. Sociologie du travail 55(4):474–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. DGCIS (2012) Les réalités industrielles dans le domaine des nanomatériaux en France. Analyse du poids des nanomatériaux dans la filière industrielle concernée. http://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/guides/realites-industrielles-nanomateriaux-france.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2019

  16. Cao C, Appelbaum R, Parker R (2013) Research is high and the market is far away: commercialization of nanotechnology in China. Technol Soc 35(1):55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chaskiel P, Suraud MG (2014) Nanotechnologies, l’espace civique des risques redimensionnés. Nature, Sciences et Société, 22:93–102

  18. Suraud MG (2013) La contestation des nanos: redéfinir la notion de politisation de la science. Les Enjeux de l’Information et de la Communication, http://w3.u-grenoble3.fr/les_enjeux/2013/09Suraud. Accessed 13 July 2019

  19. Camguilhem S (2015) La constitution de l’ITAV en Midi-Pyrénées: les nanobiotechnologies comme levier de la transformation de la recherche publique. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Toulouse

  20. De Kerorguen Y (2006) Les nanotechnologies, espoir, menace ou mirage? Editions Lignes de Repères, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jouvenet M (2012) Nanosciences et nanotechnologies: une coopération modèle? Terrain 58 (March). URL: http://journals.openedition.org/terrain/14645. Accessed 13 July 2019; https://doi.org/10.4000/field.14645

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments which helped be to improve this text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CERTOP-CNRS (Centre d’Etude et de Recherche Travail, Organisation, Pouvoir), University Paul Sabatier-Toulouse 3, 115 Route de Narbonne, 31077, Toulouse CEDEX 4, France

    Marie-Gabrielle Suraud

Authors
  1. Marie-Gabrielle Suraud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Gabrielle Suraud.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suraud, MG. From “Safe by Design” to Scientific Changes: Unforeseen Effects of Controversy Surrounding Nanotechnology in France. Nanoethics 13, 103–112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00343-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00343-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation