The Presumptive Case for Nanotechnology

The United States 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 simultaneously directs Federal agencies to undertake research and planning activities that will promote the development of nanoscale science and technology, while also mandating consideration of Societal and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology (SEIN). The case for nanotechnology is implicit in the first component of this directive, and it is simple and direct. The tools and science we call nanotechnology can be employed to increase economic productivity, reduce negative environmental impacts, and to insure and improve human health. The record of products already on the market is mixed: nanoparticles in sunscreens may pose risks that have escaped the scrutiny of regulatory oversight, and who really cares about “ nanopants” in any case? At the same time, less publicly visible nanotechnologies have been utilized in catalysis and packaging for many years with a record of solid (if unspectacular) success. A strong defense of nanotechnology's ability to deliver on broader criteria of social benefit has been mounted elsewhere. David Berube's book Nanohype documents a plethora of government and business prognostications that have been produced to promote the possibilities of nanotechnology (Berube, 2006). Products currently under development and promised to do wonderful things, and there are undoubtedly many more applications that are as yet undeveloped, unresearched and even unimagined.

On the other hand, Berube also documents a number of cautionary studies that indicate the need to study social and ethical issues in nanotechnology. The rationale for these studies often cites public opposition to so-called GMOs (genetically modified organisms) or to nuclear power. Berube's analysis suggests that the basis of this opposition lies in a generalized disenchantment with technology and modern life. When mobilized by media coverage and by the feeling that public interests have been neglected in key decision making processes, this disenchantment spawns resentment, public demonstrations and organized opposition in the form of publicity campaigns, lawsuits and regulatory activism (Berube, 2006). In the case of GMOs, public outrage has coalesced into a global social movement dedicated to blocking the application of biotechnologies in all but the most compelling biomedical applications (Gaskell and Bauer, 2002).